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, November 24, 1998

• 0915

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)): I would like to welcome all the members. We will undertake the agenda for Tuesday, November 24th.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are holding a special meeting on the housing problems of Nunavik.

Today's witnesses are: from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Terry Henderson, Director General, Claims Implementation Branch, Claims and Indian Government Sector; Mr. Jeff Moore, Director, James Bay Implementation Office, Claims and Indian Government Sector; Mr. Ian Corbin, Acting Director, Community Development Directorate, Social Policy and Programs Branch, Socioeconomic Policy and Programming and Program Re-design Sector; and Mr. Martin Lévesque, Counsel, Legal Services.

From the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we have with us Ms. Deborah Taylor, Acting Director, Assisted Housing Division; and Mrs. Teresa Maioni, Solicitor, Legal Division.

Mr. Henderson do you have an opening statement?

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I introduce this motion I spoke to you about earlier? I'll table it and then we can carry on.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I move that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be requested to appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity to address the performance reviews of the department.

I'll submit that in writing to you. I'd like to introduce that at this time.

[Translation]

The Chairman: This is a notice of motion. We don't have quorum right now for notices of motion. We can look at it again later since it has been tabled.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): It's a notice of motion, Myron—

Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes, either way—

Mr. John Bryden: I have one on the floor as well on the same circumstances, so we'll deal with them in due course.

Is that all right, Mr. Chairman?

[Translation]

The Chairman: That's fine. Thank you.

We apologize, Mr. Henderson. Go ahead. Do you have an opening statement?

Mr. Terry Henderson (Director General, Claims Implementation Branch, Claims and Indian Government Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Given the short notice to appear before the committee today, I do not have a prepared piece for distribution to committee members, but I wish to provide some opening remarks from notes I have before me, if that pleases the committee.

As I understand it, we have been asked here today to provide facts and other information, as we understand them, with respect to the concern that the federal government has an obligation to provide social housing to the Inuit of northern Quebec, or Nunavik.

We're aware that there were a number of other issues raised by the mayors of the Inuit communities on October 29, 1998 and by Makivik Corporation on November 19, 1998, just last Thursday. At this time we're prepared to address the question of social housing only as best we can under the current circumstances, that being the short notice we're under as well as other initiatives that are at play.

I believe members are aware that Makivik Corporation has recently invoked the dispute resolution mechanism that is available to it under the 1990 implementation agreement signed by the federal government and Makivik Corporation. They did so by way of a June 11, 1998 letter to Minister Jane Stewart. This was the first time, in fact, that either party has had to resort to this dispute resolution mechanism.

Representatives of both parties are about to proceed with the first of three stages of this dispute resolution mechanism: formal consultations. We, the federal government and representatives of the federal government, look forward to this opportunity to proceed with such an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with openness and in good faith.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which was Canada's first modern-day treaty, was signed in 1975 by several parties, including the Inuit of northern Quebec, the Province of Quebec, and the federal government. Among many other things, the Inuit received $93 million in cash settlement, ownership to lands, and special rights with respect to harvesting north of the 55th parallel.

• 0920

With respect to housing, there are the following specific provisions. If you will permit me, I would like to quote the only provisions in the James Bay-Northern Quebec Agreement that pertain to housing specifically.

Section 29.0.40 reads:

The existing provision of housing, electricity, water, sanitation and related municipal services to Inuit shall continue, taking into account population trends, until a unified system, including the transfer of property and housing management to the municipalities, can be arranged between the Regional Government, the municipalities and Canada and Québec.

Section 29.0.41 reads:

Following the execution of the Agreement [that being the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement] the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development shall decide the allocation of Inuit houses in [close] consultation with the Inuit of [northern] Québec. This arrangement will continue until the program is transferred.

Third is section 29.0.42, which states:

The Agreement guarantees that the Inuit of Fort George [which is now known as Chisasibi, for clarification] shall receive new housing for all families under either the Indian or the Northern housing schemes. The Inuit housing shall be provided according to not less than the population ratio of the Cree and Inuit of Fort George [or Chisasibi] and concurrent with the provisions of Cree housing.

In fulfilment of the two sections, 29.0.40 and 29.0.41, in 1981 Canada signed an agreement with the Province of Quebec to establish a unified system called for in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. By transferring DIAND's responsibilities for the provision of housing and related services to Quebec in exchange for $72 million, Quebec indemnified Canada for any claims arising with respect to Canada's obligations under sections 29.0.40 and 29.0.41. Moreover, by way of an agreement in 1996, Canada fulfilled its obligations under section 29.0.42, the third provision I cited, to the Inuit of Fort George, now known as Chisasibi.

Despite this 1981 agreement with Quebec, pursuant to a study of conditions in northern Quebec and the resulting Tait report, Canada and Quebec entered into a catch-up agreement in 1983 by which Canada provided an additional $14.6 million to accelerate the Inuit housing program in northern Quebec. In addition, through an arrangement with la Société d'habitation du Québec, SHQ, CMHC began to provide subsidies for public housing units to the Inuit communities in about 1980. This arrangement was cost-shared with and delivered and administered by SHQ, la Société d'habitation du Québec.

In 1990, Canada and the Makivik Corporation signed an implementation agreement respecting the implementation of certain provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Among other things, this agreement established structures and joint implementation management processes between Canada and Makivik, including a three-stage dispute resolution mechanism. This agreement, however, is silent on the housing program.

In 1993, the federal government announced it was terminating its social housing programs delivered through CMHC with the exception of the on-reserve housing program. While funding continues to flow to all housing units approved prior to 1994, including those of the Inuit, CMHC no longer contributes toward new housing units in Inuit communities anywhere in Canada.

• 0925

While the federal government does not at this time believe it has a legal obligation to provide social housing to the Inuit of northern Quebec, by having established the unified system called for in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, we do look forward to a fact-based discussion with Makivik as the stages of the dispute resolution mechanism unfold.

Although Quebec is not obliged to participate in this bilateral process, we intend to invite them to participate, especially given the current dialogue they're having with the Inuit on housing.

I would like to conclude by saying the whole question of access to adequate and affordable housing is a challenge for all aboriginal communities, and the Inuit of northern Quebec are certainly no exception.

My colleagues and I are prepared to entertain whatever questions the committee might have for us, as best we can. Thank you.

The Chairman: Merci, monsieur Terry Henderson.

[Translation]

Does Mrs. Taylor have a statement to make on behalf of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation?

Ms. Deborah Taylor (Acting Director, Assisted Housing Division, Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation): No thank you, Sir.

The Chairman: Fine. We'll go on to the round of questions.

[English]

Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'm not sure what kind of questions to ask. I understand, in your view, there has been some failure on the part of the government to hold up its terms in the agreements that were signed prior to 1985. Is that correct? From 1971, the agreements were signed.

Mr. Terry Henderson: No, sir. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed in 1975, and there were certain provisions for housing that I cited in my opening remarks. In 1990 there was a further negotiation to better fulfill obligations under the agreement. That was a bilateral negotiation process between the Government of Canada and the Inuit of northern Quebec, and it resulted in a jointly signed 1990 implementation agreement. The federal government believes it has fulfilled and is fulfilling all the provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the 1990 agreement with respect to the Inuit of northern Quebec.

We cannot say some of those are fulfilled. I appeared before this committee a couple of weeks ago around the question of the Auditor General's report. At that time we expressed that these are modern-day treaties, so some obligations are ongoing and will never be fulfilled because we are constantly fulfilling them as we go along. But we believe we have fulfilled or are fulfilling all of those obligations today.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I will wait until later for the other questions.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take it you have all read the testimony that was before this committee recently on the Inuit of northern Quebec.

Mr. Terry Henderson: I have read the testimony from last Thursday and also from October 29.

Mr. John Bryden: Can I ask then, very bluntly, in your opinion were those witnesses understating or overstating the situation with respect to social housing in northern Quebec?

Mr. Terry Henderson: With respect to their housing conditions, I don't doubt for a moment that those statistics are accurate. We have not gone through a process of validating the statistics on the conditions of housing they've represented there. But we want to express today our views on what the facts and information are surrounding obligations under the agreements we have with the Inuit of northern Quebec.

Mr. John Bryden: But obligations aside, I take it your department monitors the situation in these remote communities in northern Quebec. Do I take it that you are in general agreement that there is a serious problem up there, as reported by the witnesses that appeared before this committee?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I'm not sure it's my position to speculate on whether or not there's a serious problem and how serious that problem is.

• 0930

Mr. John Bryden: The very first thing that we ought to be doing is someone on your side should be establishing the validity of the situation so that we as MPs know that when we are invited to take action, it's correct for us to do so.

You were saying that the federal government has fulfilled its obligation as far as you're concerned. Can I then ask you what's going wrong, if we assume that something is going wrong? If the federal government is fulfilling its obligation, do I assume then that the Quebec government is not fulfilling its obligations, or do I assume that there is some innate failure in the actual agreement that led to this situation? Can you explain to me what's happening here?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I'm not about to speculate as to whether the Province of Quebec is fulfilling its obligations or not. I think we would leave that up to the Province of Quebec to speak to. I don't think it was ever intended that the 1975 agreement would respond to all situations and all circumstances. There are provisions there with respect to the provision of normal programming; however, it was not intended that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement create perfection in those communities. But there have been a number of improvements in social and economic conditions in those communities regardless.

Mr. John Bryden: We're not talking about perfection here. The witnesses who came before us spoke of a crisis, of serious problems, of failure.

You were describing an agreement that Canada entered into with Quebec, which involved $72 million on one occasion and $14 million on another. Has the federal government monitored the agreement that it has with Quebec? You say you cannot judge Quebec. Who's going to judge Quebec if you're not going to judge Quebec as partners in an agreement to deliver social housing? Who's judging the efficacy of this agreement with Quebec?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I believe that is a question between Quebec and the Inuit of northern Quebec. The agreement we have with Quebec was a full and final arrangement wherein Quebec indemnified the Government of Canada for any claims arising under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. We do not have a process in place to monitor Quebec's fulfilment.

Mr. John Bryden: Just so that I'm very clear, Quebec is charged basically with delivering the social housing in these remote communities as a result of these agreements. Is that correct?

Mr. Terry Henderson: They took over Indian and Northern Affairs' responsibilities with respect to housing and related services.

Mr. John Bryden: And no monitoring is in place to determine whether Quebec is fulfilling the obligations it undertook as a result of those agreements?

Mr. Terry Henderson: Not by the federal government, you're correct, sir.

Mr. John Bryden: My gosh, it wouldn't work in business this way. I think when you enter into agreements, one ought to be monitoring. This is not your problem—I realize this. It becomes a political problem.

We can say that we've identified one of the major problems here, and it is that an agreement on social housing was entered into between Quebec and the federal government and the federal government is not monitoring it and has never monitored it. So you are not prepared to judge whether Quebec has fulfilled its agreement. That's correct, is it not? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Mr. Terry Henderson: No, that is correct.

If I might elaborate, however, we are entering into, as I indicated in my opening remarks, a dispute resolution mechanism with the Inuit of northern Quebec, and while Quebec is not obliged to participate in that, we would—I think both parties would—wish to invite Quebec to participate in those particular discussions so that we can have good, fact-based discussions and so on.

Mr. John Bryden: Isn't it true that this committee cannot summon the officials from Quebec? Or maybe it's not true. Maybe that's what we ought to be doing. Normally one wouldn't expect Quebec officials to appear before this committee on this issue.

Mr. Terry Henderson: I'm sorry, sir, I can't respond to that question—

Mr. John Bryden: That's fine.

Mr. Terry Henderson: —on what the protocol for the committee is.

Mr. John Bryden: That's okay, I was just trying to establish—

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden, I can answer your question. Yesterday, I wrote to Mr. Guy Chevrette, the minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. Even though they don't have to come before our committee, I asked him to invite representatives of the Quebec Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat, the Municipal Affairs Ministry and representatives of the Société d'habitation du Québec to participate in this committee's investigation of this urgent problem whenever it's convenient for them, before the House of Commons adjourns. The letter has been mailed and we will be sending you a copy today.

• 0935

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one more, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to overextend my time.

Coming to the dispute resolution, if in the course of the dispute resolution the Government of Canada wins, it demonstrates in the dispute resolution that indeed it has fulfilled all its obligations. Then can we assume that the Government of Canada will have no need whatsoever to address this problem of social housing in the small remote communities?

Mr. Terry Henderson: Sir, if you're asking me to speculate on the outcome of the dispute resolution mechanism, I really can't do that. We want to go into this in a very open manner and put facts on the table and share information and jointly attempt to address the issues that face the Inuit of northern Quebec.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm not asking you to speculate on the resolution of the dispute mechanism that we're doing. What I'm asking you is that if in the process of this dispute resolution process it is demonstrated that, as you have described, the federal government has fulfilled all its obligations under the James Bay treaty, and whatever other legal obligations it has with respect to social housing and the Inuit, then the federal government in that situation will be under no obligation whatsoever to address the social problems that are occurring as a result of the shortage of housing. Is that not correct?

Mr. Terry Henderson: We would consider ourselves to be under no legal obligation, which is how we feel right now, but we are certainly prepared in the dispute resolution mechanism to explore alternative solutions to this problem with the Inuit of northern Quebec. We would like to go into it, not as a win-lose situation, but as a win-win situation for everyone.

Mr. John Bryden: But isn't it true that this is the wrong forum, a dispute resolution process, to try to address a problem like this? Really the debate is going to be about, if I understand correctly, the federal government's legal obligations in this situation, not about finding solutions to the crisis that the Inuit face right now.

I ask you then, surely a better process would be for the departments or someone in government to sit down and address the crisis as it is presented before us, regardless of the legal obligations of the government.

Mr. Terry Henderson: But, sir, if you're trying to say that I said the only thing we're going to be talking about around the dispute resolution mechanism, through those various processes, is the legal obligations or non-legal obligations of the federal government, that is not the case. We want to explore virtually everything.

With respect to the dispute resolution mechanism, whether it's an appropriate process or not, it's a process that the parties agreed to in 1990 as an appropriate one to follow in cases where there were disputes. It's now the Inuit of northern Quebec who have invoked this, and so we are looking to proceed accordingly.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me try it one more way, and I'm not trying to make things difficult for you; I'm trying to find my way around a difficult problem.

It seems to me that this is not a question of a dispute. It doesn't interest me in the least who has the legal obligations here. What interests me is that I find my fellow Canadians are in a state of crisis; they have a serious problem in northern Quebec. As a representative of Parliament—forget the government, as a representative of Parliament—I feel it is my obligation to come to their aid.

I'm wondering whether the dispute resolution process is the most efficient way to come to their aid, because I presume this is going to take time and all kinds of meetings. Surely we should be looking at other methods of addressing this problem of the Inuit in these remote communities. Do you have any suggestions on how we might do it other than through this dispute resolution process?

Mr. Terry Henderson: Sir, no, I do not have other suggestions. My approach, to be most efficient, is to try to follow one process of communications as opposed to multiple processes. Therefore, if the Inuit have invoked this process, and it's the first time they ever have and that we've ever used it, I think it would be an appropriate approach to follow the process. There are three stages to it. The first one is consultation, which I would view as fact-based discussions, which would be very open. A second step in the process could well be mediation, if one of the parties decides we need to move in that direction.

Mr. John Bryden: I have one final question, Mr. Chairman, and I'll come back again, but I must share my time.

In this dispute resolution process that is now kicking in, how long do you think it's going to take before some sort of action is decided upon between the federal government and the parties on the other side of the dispute process? What type of timeframe are we looking at when we come into this kind of negotiation?

• 0940

Mr. Terry Henderson: I really can't comment, because it takes the two parties to decide overall how the process is going to unfold. We've had contact with the Makivik Corporation. We hope to have the first meetings beginning next week in Kuujjuaq. We haven't even discussed what's going to happen at those meetings, but I suspect we need to work out a process in terms of how it will unfold.

Timelines are provided for in the implementation agreement in terms of how each of the stages of the dispute resolution mechanism should unfold. Those timelines are there as a starting point, though, and if the parties agree that other timelines are warranted, then they will agree amongst themselves.

So it's impossible for me to comment about how long this process will take.

Mr. John Bryden: I have one “final” final question, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: There's no problem, Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: In your experience in similar situations to this, how much time does it normally take in this type of situation? Surely this isn't the first time you've encountered this type of process. Are we talking about weeks? Are we talking about months? Are we talking about years?

Mr. Terry Henderson: Sir, we have dispute resolution mechanisms established under most of our modern-day land claim agreements. There are thirteen land claim agreements in place right now. Most of them have dispute resolution mechanisms with arbitration boards. To my knowledge—and I think my knowledge is quite accurate—there has been only one occasion when a dispute resolution mechanism has been followed, and that is under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. That came under the arbitration provisions of that final agreement, so it is the only experience we've had.

Mr. John Bryden: How long did that take?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I'm sorry, I wasn't there, so I don't have that information. We could provide that information later if you wish.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

M. Fournier.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): I must advise you that unless the meeting finishes earlier, I will have to leave around 11:30 because I have another meeting to attend.

Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that you're sure that the Parti Québécois government will be re-elected since you've already invited the Minister, Mr. Guy Chevrette, to attend one of our meetings? As you can see, I'm very pleased with your opinion.

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier, the results of the provincial election don't matter. As representative of people in my riding, of the Abitibi, James Bay and Nunavik, and as Chairman of the committee, I wrote this letter upon request from members of the committee. We know that right now the government continues to govern in Quebec. If there is a change in government, the new government will follow up, but today, I feel that the government in place has the necessary authority to respond to my letter.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I congratulate you for that and I'm sure there will be no change in government.

Mr. Chairman, last June, the Aboriginal Affairs critic for the Bloc Québécois wrote to the Minister, Mrs. Stewart, to ask that her department respond to the urgent demand for social housing for the Inuit of Nunavik. Amongst other things, he asked her that the federal government honour its obligations under article 29.02 of the James Bay Agreement. On August 20th, Minister Stewart replied that the federal government's obligation depended on the criteria established when an application for such programs was filed and during the general parliamentary approval of such programs and subsidies. She wrote that right now, these conditions exclude access by the Inuit of Nunavik to Canada's social housing programs. My question is as follows. Why are the Inuit excluded from all these programs, given their pressing needs for housing?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: Thank you for your question. I'm not sure I can respond adequately to it, because I would be speculating on why the federal government has the policies it has today, and that's beyond my purview.

• 0945

In terms of having a continuing program for status Indians on reserve, I suspect the federal government has that program because on-reserve Indians would not have access to any kind of housing program. The provinces tend to be reluctant to provide any services on reserve. Therefore, the federal government feels obliged, particularly pursuant to its responsibility to have established that kind of a program. But as I said, why there is no access for the Inuit is beyond my purview to answer.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Can you explain how the existing housing programs can respond to the needs of the Inuit of Nunavik? In your opinion, are there presently any programs that could apply to Nunavik?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: I do not have very much information on this, but I understand that the province of Quebec has recently established an arrangement with the Inuit of northern Quebec to provide for housing. I'm not totally familiar with the nature of those arrangements, but that is access to housing for them.

I would also say that housing funding continues to flow from the federal government to the Inuit communities, but that is based upon decisions that were taken toward new housing units built before 1994. The funding continues to flow, though, and it involves multimillions of dollars. The federal government is just no longer contributing to new housing units that are being built in the Inuit communities anywhere in Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Do you hold out any hope that the federal government will review its position and contribute at last to the housing program for the Inuit of Nunavik? If it does so, with the procedures that involves, how long will it take to find a solution to this serious problem experienced by the Inuit of Nunavik? This is an urgent situation.

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: I'm sorry, sir, but I can't speculate on what government policies might unfold in the future. I will reiterate that we would like to move through this dispute resolution mechanism with the Inuit of Nunavik and jointly explore alternatives to resolve some of their housing problems.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Henderson, on November 20th, you received a request by Mr. Bern Penne—you talked about that—to have a meeting in Kuujjuaq. Did you find out yesterday the date of the meeting in Kuujjuaq?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: The meeting on the dispute resolution mechanism, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Terry Henderson: We are exploring now the possibility of December 3 and 4 with the Makivik representatives. As you say, we received that letter on November 20. We have responded to Mr. Bern Pennee, their legal counsel who wrote that letter, and we are trying to establish a starting point for the first stage of the dispute resolution mechanism in Kuujjuaq on December 3 and 4. If that works out for the Inuit of northern Quebec, we would be going there to do it on those dates, and we would be going with representatives from CMHC and from Indian and Northern Affairs.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Given that you've brought the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation with you, do you also intend to bring people from the Department of Health so that they can observe the current situation of tuberculosis in the North? Given the health problems that exist, isn't this a good opportunity to bring people from Mr. Rock's Department of Health?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: Mr. Chairman, it might be an opportunity for that, but being the first meeting we would be having, it might be premature to invite other representatives from the federal government. I think it's better to understand the situation, to work out the process we're going to follow in the dispute resolution mechanism, and to then decide how we can move through that process and who the most appropriate representatives at the table are at any point in time.

• 0950

[Translation]

The Chairman: Will representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs have an opportunity to visit several villages after the meeting and, since they will already be on site, can they visit three or four villages to see what is going on right now both in Ungava Bay and on Hudson Bay?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: There certainly might be opportunities to make visits like that, Mr. Chairman. We'll certainly be in Kuujjuaq next week. I expect to be attending personally. If it is felt that we need to have further meetings and we need to again work out the process and the schedule with our Inuit partners, or if we feel visits to other communities are in order, we will certainly proceed in that vein.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Nancy.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you were saying in your remarks, this housing situation is not exclusive to northern Quebec. That is true. I think the overall situation is more one that is all across Canada. I know there are communities in my riding that were similar to the ones described in the testimony we heard from the people from northern Quebec a couple of weeks ago. To make it a broader issue, I think we're faced with a housing crisis in a lot of aboriginal communities all across Canada.

I'd like to pose a question to CMHC. You said that in 1993 the social program was halted by CMHC. First of all, what did they put up in its place? Was it only transfers to the provinces and territories to handle their own housing? If you were not putting in any more money for new housing, what were they supposed to do as far as getting new housing was concerned? I know we have home ownership assistance programs that are in place, but that doesn't take care of the single people issue or the small family issue. I'm trying to find out more, first, through CMHC. What is their role now as far as providing some relief to any community that is trying to get housing is concerned?

To tie that in, if CMHC went back to, say, social housing, would they then not qualify under section 29.0.2 in terms of being eligible to apply for funding that is available to other Inuit and Indians in Canada? I'm trying to put the two together somehow.

Thank you.

Ms. Deborah Taylor: With respect to the decision that the federal government made in 1993, it terminated all long-term commitments off reserve, effective January 1, 1994. Other than two short-term programs that occurred in 1994 and 1996—programs that were to provide remote housing—there have been no new supply programs created by the federal government. Since 1994, however, there has been renovation assistance provided both for homeowners and for people to be able to modify their homes for disabled modifications. There has also been renovation assistance for landlords, for rental accommodation, and rooming house accommodation. In addition, there has been renovation assistance provided for seniors in need—all of these households have to be defined as being in need—to be able to make modifications to their houses in order to let them stay in their houses longer. That would include things like grab bars and things they need. There has also been some funding provided for the creation of shelters for victims of family violence.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: All the programs you talk about are renovating existing units. That really is the crux of the problems we were hearing about.

You mentioned homes for victims of spousal assault. I'm trying to justify that and understand that, but one of the reasons why I would think there would be a lot more social problems is that too many people are living in one house.

• 0955

I really believe a lot of the problems we're having in all our aboriginal communities are because of housing. You know, there are health situations.... Any time you have five or more adults living in a house, there are going to be tensions, especially if some of them are young couples having their own small children. The facts we heard were about 15 people in one home. That's not an exception. That's starting to be the norm in a lot of the communities. You're going to run into social problems.

The programs you're telling me about are all renovating existing.... They're not opening any new opportunities for new housing. I'm trying to find out if there is any way we can get back into providing singles with homes, like apartments. I find the renovation programs and homeowner assistance programs don't provide the housing we need for young people.

I'm just gathering facts right now of how many people are on the waiting list in the communities and the average number of people who are in the homes. I think we're going to find numbers that are similar to what we heard from those mayors. I think we have a crisis on our hands. I'm trying to find out whether there is any other program we can get into that would provide new housing.

Ms. Deborah Taylor: I cannot answer the question in terms of the government's intentions. I can only answer the question regarding the tools we have available to work with at the present time. The federal government does provide close to $1.9 billion of subsidy a year for more than 600,000 assisted housing units across Canada.

I would suggest as well that the renovation programs do in fact have an implication for providing some new housing, because as low-rental structures and rooming houses are renovated, there is more opportunity for people to move into them.

I would also suggest there are opportunities for provincial housing programs to provide some relief, such as the one that was mentioned earlier that has just been signed between the Province of Quebec and the Katavik regional government, in which they have created a home ownership program. Some of the people who will meet the eligibility requirements the province and Katavik have agreed to under that home ownership program will then free up some of the existing social housing units for families to move into. So there is somewhat of a cascading effect in that regard.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Well, I still feel they're not getting the numbers we need at the bottom level, because you can only renovate what is already there.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Ms. Taylor, could you provide us with an account of the programs from 1994 to the present and especially the amount of money spent in Nunavik for renovation and the amount already spent by the province of Quebec within the framework of these programs? Are you referring to the PAREL program when you talk about the agreement that you have with the province?

[English]

Ms. Deborah Taylor: I don't have all of the facts and figures with me here, but that's information we would be able to provide to you. What I can tell you is since 1994, the renovation programs are what the federal government has offered in terms of new housing assistance. There is RRAP, a residential rehabilitation assistance program for homeowners, for the disabled, for rental housing, and for rooming houses. There's also the shelter enhancement program, which is the one for victims of family violence. The other one is the housing adaptation for seniors' independence.

• 1000

In addition, in 1994 and 1996 there was an amount of money provided for the remote housing program. In 1994 that housing was delivered off reserve only; in 1996 it was delivered in remote locations both on and off reserve.

In addition, since 1994 the federal government has continued to provide new funding for housing on reserve, both supply in terms of the creation of new rental housing units, as well as funding for renovations of existing housing.

In the case of Quebec and the off-reserve programs I mentioned, the federal government has provided an allocation of assistance to them, the Province of Quebec has cost-shared and delivered those programs, and we have entered into an agreement with them to deliver their own provincial housing programs that meet the eligibility requirements the federal programs have.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madam. We will await your documents.

Mr. Thompson.

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Henderson, I believe you stated in your opening remarks, or at the end of your opening remarks, that you felt the government's obligations to the Inuit as well as all reserves across the country have pretty well been met. Is that what you said?

Mr. Terry Henderson: No, sir. I said I felt our obligations toward the Inuit under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement have been and are continuing to be met.

Mr. Myron Thompson: What about all the reserves? You said something about them as well.

Mr. Terry Henderson: I don't believe in my opening remarks I said anything about reserves. I apologize, sir, but I would not wish to contemplate whether or not the federal government is fulfilling obligations toward those at this point in time.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'm just a little curious as to.... You're saying the government's obligations to the Inuit have been met, but then we see articles like the one in the Globe and Mail saying that living conditions are a social time bomb. The leaders of the Inuit are indicating there are 425 new units needed in order to relieve the conditions that exist with 15 people, as the member said a moment ago, living in a household. Tuberculosis is arriving at an inordinate level. There are problems all over the place.

And of course, if you go out into the west, you see two-page articles on the Samson Reserve. You go into some of the reserves I've been in, and I've visited these people; I went into their homes.... One home was a broken down bus with no wheels, holes in the walls, a path, no bath, and four children. And social services was thinking about taking the children because the conditions were so deplorable, but no housing effort has been made in regard to that group of people living in that community.

In another one, I sat in an apple crate, being hosted by the elders as best they could with what they had. The conditions are absolutely deplorable, sir, and when you go to the Department of Indian Affairs, the answer I get back when I ask them about these conditions that exist.... I've seen them with my own eyes; I've visited with these people. There are some serious problems. The answer I get from Indian Affairs is, it's an internal problem.

So looking at the big picture, I understand they were trying to maybe say Quebec is obligated to the Inuit housing situation. From all across the country, and in Manitoba, where there are real serious problems, and in Saskatchewan where there are serious living condition problems.... I've seen them.

I get this, “it's an internal problem”. So that indicates to me that according to the Department of Indian Affairs, there's an obligation on the leaders of these reserves to address the fact that's not being met. It isn't the department's problem; it's an internal problem.

• 1005

That's the answer I got from Mr. Fred Joppit in Alberta. And I can give you names from all across the country of people from the Indian affairs department who made that statement.

Is that true? Is it true that the obligations are more in the hands of the leaders of the reserve than the Department of Indian Affairs? Is it true that Quebec has the obligation over the federal government?

If that's the case, then I'd like to go back to Mr. Bryden's question. Is the federal government doing its job of monitoring what the obligations are of these individuals? If it is their obligation, what are they doing about it?

The Stoney Reserve is in the middle of a huge investigation at the present time regarding the funding. We're waiting for the reports. We're still waiting. A lot of it's for the neglect of housing. Where did the money go? Why are they in debt? There's a $12 million indebtedness on a reserve in Manitoba. Where has that money gone? Why are there so many problems?

The answer that always comes back is “it's an internal problem”. They give an indication that it has nothing to do with you people. Is that true? If so, could you explain all that? I'm really mixed up as to who's responsible for these conditions. Is it the Department of Indian Affairs? Is it the chiefs and councils of the reserves? Is it the Inuit leaders? Is it the Province of Quebec? Just who's responsible.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Well, sir, you've asked quite a question there. The socio-economic conditions faced by aboriginal communities are undoubtedly a shared challenge and a shared responsibility among those communities and those governments who have a role to play. There's no question in my mind there are hardships that exist out there among all aboriginal communities.

But it's not simply a question of saying there needs to be a federal policy in place to solve all of those problems. I don't believe that is clearly an answer. Federal policy is one instrument. We have certain instruments at our disposal today, and those are the only instruments at our disposal today.

Provincial governments have other policies and other programs, which they deliver, make available, and provide access to. The communities themselves share in the financial aspects as well as the delivery aspects of all of those programs. So it's very much a shared responsibility.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Henderson, hardship is a person, in my view, living in Ottawa who can't find a job and they're having a tough time making ends meet. I'm not talking about hardships. I'm talking about deplorable, third world conditions that I have been in myself, that I have seen with my own eyes.

I'm talking about reports, which I think might have come through your department—correct me if I'm wrong—reports showing that if the reserves were considered into the factors of the best country in which to live, Canada wouldn't be number one; it would be about number 65. The third world conditions that existed in these areas are as serious as they were in places like Mexico and Brazil. I think those reports might have come through your office. I don't know for sure. But that's how serious it is.

This isn't a hardship, sir; it's a deplorable, absolutely scary situation. And I don't understand why the department is sitting back.

I'm glad to hear the committee chairman say that the committee should go out and travel around and see some of these. I think they should broaden out. It is more than a hardship. It's become a matter of survival in a lot of places. These people are really looking for some answers, and they're not getting any.

So I would suggest to you that the department is doing a very poor job; that the obligations of the chiefs in council are not being met; that, whatever they may be, the obligations of the provinces to a degree aren't being met. We need to really clean up our act and clean it up in a hurry, because winter's coming, and I can tell you there will be some disasters on many of the reserves I visited myself, in homes that I sat in and was entertained by native people. That's the message I'd like to pass on to you. Thank you.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Message received, sir.

The Chairman: Merci, M. Thompson.

The chair acknowledges Madam Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for coming.

• 1010

I echo the questions. Everything that has been asked is something I want answers to, and at the moment I'm not entirely satisfied with the responses.

I'm very concerned about the devolution of responsibility, that Quebec has indemnified us, and that they're to provide the housing, and yet there's no way of actually monitoring it. I'm always very concerned when we say it's somebody else's job now and I don't have to worry about it. I know you don't necessarily have an answer and it's not your policy, but it is something that bothers me deeply, because at the end of the day these people are not being well served, and that's the bottom line. I don't care who is responsible. The fact is we're the federal government and we need to be concerned.

From DIAND's point of view, is social housing a fulfilment of a treaty obligation or a matter of social policy?

A voice: Mr. Corbin, I think, could respond to that.

Mr. Ian Corbin (Acting Director, Community Development Directorate, Social Policy and Programs Branch, Socioeconomic Policy and Programming and Program Re-design Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Housing is a matter of social policy. There are no specific provisions in the treaties with regard to an obligation of the government to provide housing.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Given that, it seems to me, then, that we're not doing a very good job on social policy. For example, I'm hearing from CMHC that there are programs available for those who live on reserve, but off reserve, the Inuit in northern Quebec being in that category, they can't access the same programs, and that bothers me. I don't know if there's an answer and who can answer it, but why is it that they can't?

Ms. Deborah Taylor: The Inuit of northern Quebec are not considered to be located on reserve, and the government decision in 1993 was that only the programs of supply assistance on reserve would continue to be delivered. That's the short answer in terms of the government decision.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm looking at section 2.11 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which says “Nothing contained in this Agreement shall prejudice the rights of the Native people as Canadian citizens of Québec”. I can go on and on. They seem to be prejudiced now. If they're off reserve, they can't access the same kinds of programs that other Inuit and Indian bands are getting elsewhere. I know there's a distinction between on and off, but the fact is their basic human rights are not being fulfilled.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Mrs. Longfield, the situation is that the federal government no longer provides social housing to any Canadians, including Inuit, and the only place it provides continuing social housing programs is on reserve. So if we're talking about parity with other Canadians and so on, that would be my response.

Mr. Ian Corbin: That's because the provincial governments have said that Indians on reserve are not their responsibility, and the federal government has accepted a responsibility for those on reserve who, because of the reserve status, do not have access to provincial-territorial programs and to the other financial assistance that would be available off reserve. They continue to provide those programs on reserve.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm going to leave that for a moment.

The request for dispute resolution was filed in June. It has been five months, and it will be almost another month before we get into that. Why does it take so long?

Mr. Terry Henderson: That's a very fair question. It's not a question of not responding to it, because Minister Jane Stewart did respond on two separate occasions to the Inuit, to the Makivik Corporation, on this front. It wasn't a question of stalling, which is a pejorative term; it was a question of seeking more time, because we want to be able to go into this first ever opportunity to operationalize a dispute resolution mechanism and to deal with this very challenging question we have before us with as much information as we possibly can.

We have been undertaking very active research among my department, the CMHC, and the Department of Justice, looking at this whole question of housing for the Inuit of Nunavik. We wanted to be prepared before we sat down at the table and to be able to share openly the facts and information that exist in the system. But it took a while to compile that. It was not in a stalling mode, but clearly we were saying please accept our desire to postpone the initial meetings for some period of time. The responses we've had back have been more or less collegial in that respect.

• 1015

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Just following up on that, did your research include investigating whether or not Quebec had fulfilled its obligations that had been transferred to it under sections 29.0.4O and 29.0.41? Is that part of the research, to see just how well Quebec is living up to its agreement? Certainly, the mayors seemed to think Quebec was fulfilling its obligations but that Canada was not. So if we're going into this, I would hope there has been some research done to find out from the department's perspective if that's actually the case. It's the Canadian government that's getting the black eye here.

Mr. Terry Henderson: We are exploring that to a certain extent. We haven't reached the end of our exploration, and probably won't do so until we move further through the dispute resolution mechanism. As I indicated, we are inviting the Province of Quebec to participate in that.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: But if they don't show up, what's our recourse? You said it's by invitation, and they don't have to come.

Mr. Terry Henderson: That's true.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: What's to bring them to the table? What is there out there that's going to encourage them to come and answer the questions?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I don't know what the incentives might be for them to come to the table. But inasmuch as they are into a dialogue and an arrangement on housing with the Inuit of northern Quebec right now, they may be most willing to do so. We cannot oblige them to do it. I suspect that we would cross that bridge when we come to it, if they choose not to participate.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I have just one further question. You indicated that under section 29.O.42 we were fulfilling our obligations, but I don't recall you explaining how we were fulfilling them. Those were part of the Quebec indemnification, were they?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I believe section 29.O.42 has to do with the Chisasibi community. There was the provision of housing up to 1996, but an agreement was signed in December 1996, I believe, with the Inuit of Chisasibi, and that agreement provided $2 million. That completes the fulfilment of the obligations. When I say complete, I will qualify that, because there are provisions in the signed agreement whereby after a period of time we will review the ratio. It was all based upon a ratio between the Cree population and the Inuit population. We would review that and ensure that the funding was still appropriate, and we may need to step back in and do something more and adjust the provision. I think I have a copy of the agreement here. But anyway, that's what it was. There was a $2 million agreement signed, and the parties were happy about that.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So there's no third party involved in that one. That's just simply between—

Mr. Terry Henderson: No, that was between ourselves and the Inuit of Chisasibi. They were the signatories.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay.

Ms. Deborah Taylor: If I—

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Henderson.

[English]

Ms. Deborah Taylor: Oh, sorry.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You're welcome, Madam.

[English]

Ms. Deborah Taylor: I just wanted to add that with regard to activity Quebec has undertaken in the Inuit communities, between the period of 1980 and 1993 some 1,700 public housing units were established through three cost-sharing agreements that the Société d'habitation du Québec has with CMHC. The province was the delivery agent and the administering party with those communities. But the federal government continues through those agreements to provide approximately $25 million a year to subsidize the ongoing operating costs of those units.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: But there has been nothing new since 1995.

Ms. Deborah Taylor: With the exception of the units delivered in 1994 and 1996 under the remote program, there is not anything else the federal government has done in terms of new delivery in the Inuit communities.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay. Thank you.

• 1020

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Henderson, on two occasions, you talked about the Inuit and Cree Chisasibi Agreement. Over 2,000 Cree live in Chisasibi, but there are fewer than 25 Inuit families. Could you give us a brief account of the Cree and Inuit population in Chisasibi?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: Sir, I'm looking at the statistics we have on all aboriginal communities in the province of Quebec from 1997. When I look at the Inuit communities, Chisasibi is at 65 for the total population—55 residents and 10 non-residents. If I look at the Cree, in Chisasibi there are a total of 3,008. Of these, 2,876 are residents and 132 are non-residents. So, yes indeed, the Cree are by far the much larger population base in Chisasibi.

[Translation]

The Chairman: That's exactly what I wanted to hear you tell the members of the committee. Thank you, Mr. Henderson.

Before I give the floor to Mr. Fournier, I would like to read an excerpt of a document presented to us by the Makivik Corporation regarding social housing in Nunavik. It states the following:

The housing crisis is a striking example of the effects of the federal policy under which Ottawa has the main responsibility for the Inuit living north of the 60th parallel and Indians living on the reserves. The effect of this policy is to prevent access to federal programs by Inuit living in the provinces, notably the Inuit in Nunavik.

We often make a distinction between those who live on the reserves and those who live off reserves. The Inuit of Nunavik have opted to establish a community in each village and they pay income tax and other taxes. I find it hard to understand that your department makes a distinction between reserves and municipalities. There's a great difference between municipalities north of the 50th parallel, especially those north of the 60th parallel, and the municipalities of the South. Let me explain.

Last summer, the Micmacs from a native reserve in Restigouche set up a blockade, and the Department of Indian Affairs immediately gave them 19 houses. However, the Inuit in Nunavik, who live further north, cannot set up blockades. In these isolated municipalities north of the 60th parallel, winter can be eight to eleven months long, and things are much worse than on the reserves. At least there are roads near most reserves. That is why I have a hard time understanding that, even though you said that you have obligations to native people living on reserves and those living off reserves, you don't seem to distinguish between the reserves and municipalities located north of the 55th or 60th parallel, where the cost of living is much higher. It costs much more to build a house there. Here, in Ottawa, a loaf of bread costs $1.10 or $1.11, whereas in the North, in Salluit, it costs between $2.90 and $3.00.

All we hear about are the reserves, but does the Department of Indian Affairs see the municipalities north of the 60th parallel any differently? People there are isolated, and they can't leave. Their only method of transportation if they want to go South is a sled, a snowmobile, or an airplane. What do the municipalities of Nunavik mean to you?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: I'm not too sure I know how to respond. A municipality is a creature of provincial government. This is true for these Inuit municipalities as well.

You've referred to the costs of construction in the north. This is true whether it's north of the 55th parallel or north of the 60th parallel. I think there are increased costs as we move into any remote community, particularly in the north because of the climate conditions.

I have a difficult time responding. You mention what Restigouche might have done. I'm not about to sit here and advocate civil disobedience amongst any groups.

• 1025

I appreciate your comments. I think they're points of fact that it does cost more to construct in the north. But we have certain instruments of federal policy with respect to housing, and those are what we are implementing and delivering at this point in time.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I'd like to point something out. When we experience a serious crisis, like the ice storm that struck the southern part of the country this year, we call out the army. Why could we not do the same thing for the North, where they are experiencing a housing crisis at this time? We could, as a social and humanitarian gesture, send the army to give them a hand, as we do for other countries. I support such measures, and I recommend that we ask the army to assume such a mandate, and to determine how much it would cost to build houses for the Inuit of Nunavik, and to evaluate the transportation costs for the necessary materials. We know that transportation is very expensive because we can't bring these materials in by air, be it Air Inuit or First Air; we must wait for summer to bring them in by boat along the St. Lawrence, Ungava Bay, and Hudson Bay. Would you be able to sit down with representatives of Canada's Armed Forces, to evaluate the costs, and determine how they could help the Inuit of Nunavik, or other regions in the North? They could use Hercules aircraft to transport material, as they do in the case of humanitarian missions; they could send Armed Forces engineers to help with these construction projects, and teach the Inuit how to build houses.

Would you take the initiative to contact the Department of National Defence so as to determine how we could build 425 houses? That would give your department an opportunity to study the situation and to learn how this concept of humanitarian aid could be applied to a Canadian situation. We help other countries. Why would we not help the Inuit who live in our own country and who are experiencing a social crisis? This is a real crisis; it has effects on health, and it causes violence, and stress among children. Asking the Armed Forces for help might be a possible solution.

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: Mr. Chairman, that sounds like some very creative thinking coming from your side of the table, and that may well be a policy option for the federal government to consider.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I will tell you the source of my creative thinking. In 1990, we urgently needed two Hercules aircraft to transport two trucks to Inukjuak in Umiujaq because the municipal garage had burned down. You know that up North, they use a truck to bring water to the houses, and another truck to pick up waste. I asked the government to send us two Hercules aircraft, and, within a week, John de Chastelain confirmed that this would be possible, and that we would not be charged because it was a humanitarian mission.

We would be able to act in the same way to settle the present crisis. The army should serve all Canadians, including those who live in the North. I would ask you to examine this possibility and to consult with Canada's Armed Forces. I think the result could be quite interesting. We can talk about creative thinking, but, these days, we are aiming for Mars, and moon landings are a thing of the past, whereas next week we will still be talking about Nunavik.

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: If I understood what was said this morning, everyone seems to agree that this relates to an agreement signed by Quebec, on the one hand, and James Bay, on the other, and that the sole responsibility lies with the federal government. You seemed to be saying that the Quebec government was under no obligation to provide housing for the Inuit. I would like to be sure that I properly understood what you said.

• 1030

If everyone agrees that this matter is strictly a federal responsibility, our committee will have to act quickly to identify the process which will allow us to solve this serious housing crisis. These elements are of great concern to me.

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: Sir, if you understood me to say that the Province of Quebec had no responsibilities in this regard, I'd like to clarify. I did not say that.

I'm not about to speculate about what the responsibilities of the Province of Quebec are, but the Province of Quebec is a co-signatory to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and they are not a signatory to the 1990 implementation agreement we have with Makivik Corporation. That was truly a bilateral agreement, but that in fact does not supercede obligations under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

What it sought to do was clarify some of those obligations and establish a process that the parties would follow in proceeding with some of the obligations under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement from the federal government and the Inuit of northern Quebec's perspective.

The agreement that was signed in 1981 between the federal government and the Province of Quebec does in fact transfer the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's responsibilities for housing to the Province of Quebec, and the Province of Quebec has in fact indemnified the Government of Canada with respect to its obligations under sections 29.0.40 and 29.0.41 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I understand that the Quebec government must indemnify the federal government. Is that the extent of its responsibilities? Does Quebec think that once the federal government has been indemnified, it will then assume all responsibilities for management and decision making? Following the agreement signed by both levels of government, is Quebec expecting the federal government to return what was given to it?

I thought that once this agreement was signed, the federal government was to assume this responsibility and do what was required. The federal government clearly indicated that it refused to apply all of the provisions of the agreement, and to settle the present housing crisis in Nunavik. Have you prepared an action plan that could be rapidly implemented? Have you thought of measures that we could jointly take with the federal government so as to finally settle this problem?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: I will reiterate from my comments earlier that the federal government believes it has fulfilled, and is fulfilling, its obligations under both the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, with respect to the Inuit, as well as the 1990 implementation agreement that we have with Makivik Corporation.

In terms of a process, again I would reiterate the process at hand is to proceed with the dispute resolution mechanism, which contains three stages. We wish to proceed with those in good faith, with openness, in dealing with our Inuit partners on that front, and see if we can not only better understand the facts and the information at our disposal, but see if we can jointly work out alternative solutions to the issues that face the Inuit.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you Mr. Fournier and Mr. Henderson. Mr. Wilfert.

• 1035

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I wasn't here at 9 a.m., but I don't think I missed much, from what I've heard.

Over the last month, we've heard representatives from Inuit communities in northern Quebec. You all know what was said. We know that housing is a basic right in Canada. First of all, we have to recognize there is a problem.

It's no wonder people in this country think we're over-governed and that we don't do a lot. This is rather pathetic to read. It's A Time for Action from December 1992, from the aboriginal northern housing subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. It says:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada provide the necessary funding to meet the housing needs of all Aboriginal and northern people living on-reserves, off-reserves, and in the North. Not only is there a backlog of new units, but there is a lack of funding to renovate existing units. Particular attention should be paid to the...needs of victims of abuse, seniors, the homeless, and the disabled.

Sound familiar? It goes on:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada recognize that Aboriginal people have particular cultural and practical housing needs which are not being addressed due to the rigidity of the current federal housing programs.

They talk about building codes, design, and so on. It talks about the need for flexibility.

These recommendations were delivered in December 1992. We can sit around here and fingerpoint and say it's Quebec's problem, or our problem or somebody else's problem.

When I was the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I had the opportunity to travel across the north, and I heard these mayors the other week—who I think, of course, are the closest to people; they certainly understand the needs in their own communities—and they identified that in their communities they're short about 425 new units. We talked about tuberculosis, we talked about stress—we talked about all the things that are again mentioned in here.

Six years later we're still talking about it. Quite frankly, I don't give a hoot whose responsibility it is, because we know that there is a responsibility in this country. If we say we're spending $1.9 billion for 600,000 subsidized units across Canada, obviously there are 425 that are in need. Yes, we have devolved responsibilities. In my view, we have devolved too much.

In my view, we set up an indemnification agreement that we clearly aren't monitoring. If we were monitoring it, then why do we have these situations? Quite frankly, we have lots of people here, but we know there's a problem. We're going through a dispute resolution mechanism, and I don't know how the heck we ever got to that point. We all recognize there's a problem, but nobody is taking any responsibility to deal with it. These people clearly made a very telling point that they probably should have gone through the reserve status route originally; then they wouldn't have had this problem.

They pay taxes, and they have social conditions that clearly need to be addressed.

I find it shameful, as a Canadian citizen, that we're even talking about it. I wouldn't tolerate it for a second in my own community, and yet I haven't heard anything today that tells me, other than that we're going through a process, we're meeting, and we're telling these people to go to the Minister of Indian Affairs.... And they're told, no, you go to the Minister for Public Works in charge of CMHC. They go to him and he says, this is not really my responsibility, go back to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs.

My 12 years of municipal politics taught me that what you need to bring to the table often is a big pair of scissors to cut through the nonsense and deal with the problems. If in fact we know that the indemnification agreement is not being monitored properly, or if we know that maybe we have to go back to the table and say we need a special provision here to deal with a problem...maybe we need to create a special provision, because no agreement is perfect, and clearly the 1975 agreement is far from perfect. The question is implementation.

People are asking...I've heard their side of the story, I've heard your side of the story, I've heard all sorts of information, but the bottom line seems to be that we're not doing the job.

I am wondering if these are forgotten people here, because clearly we wouldn't tolerate 15 people in a house. We wouldn't tolerate the high levels of domestic violence and tuberculosis and other things in our communities in the south, and I'm quite tired of talking about the issue.

• 1040

You get these kinds of reports from six years ago. I hope, Mr. Chairman, we're not going to create another report—go across the country, make all these wonderful findings—and then sit on it. That to me is what's wrong. We have too many reports and no action. It's time for action.

From a performance standpoint, it's not good enough. So we are going to take the bull by the horns and say we have a problem. We'll either create some new mechanism or we'll have the minister in and tell him point blank, “Here's the problem; fix it, that's all, no ifs, ands or buts”. There have been six years of reports that recommend basically all the same things I've heard in the last month.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden has a point of order.

Mr. John Bryden: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to interrupt my colleague, whose dissertation I entirely agree with, but I would like to make the point that the officials are not the ones who should be the target of these remarks. My colleague is actually saying this is a political problem and not a problem that is really within the purview of the officials here. I just wanted to interject and put that on the record. I hope my colleague will continue.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: In fact my colleague is quite correct because I was going to say that—

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Wilfert, you are on the right track. I know that you are an excellent member. Please continue; what you have to say is interesting.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's why you're the chairman, by the way.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, that it comes down to political will. You are charged with the responsibility of implementation of public policy. Clearly, we need to revisit the public policy. There were recommendations to take certain approaches six years ago, which obviously have not been fulfilled.

Ms. Longfield asked about the timing. It's been five months in a dispute resolution mechanism and we don't know when this is going to be dealt with. It's unfortunate we've taken that approach. But surely with all the advice the minister receives, is it unrealistic to suggest that maybe recognizing the problem, we look at whether or not we can create some special provisions, some mechanism, that will be able to deal with a blight in this country?

I've seen the conditions, as have Mr. Thompson and others, and they're not acceptable. I'm not asking for political advice because that's not your job, but I'm sure you can respond to whether or not there's an approach here. What kind of monitoring are they doing, and can we create some special provisions to try to deal with it?

Mr. Terry Henderson: With all due respect, sir, it is not my position to speculate on what kind of federal policy might be developed in the future. A personal comment from me, which may or may not be warranted and it's not a matter of public policy, is that my heart goes out to anyone, any family, that is forced to live under one roof with 15 to 18 inhabitants in a small home. But equally my heart goes out to any homeless in Ottawa, Toronto, or Montreal. That's where my personal heart lies, but my personal heart does not make federal government policy.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'm not asking you to speculate. I want to know whether or not we are monitoring effectively and if we can create a special provision to deal with the issue—no speculation.

Mr. Terry Henderson: If the question is whether we are monitoring the housing situation of the Inuit of northern Quebec, I would say for the most part we are not because we do not deem it to be the federal purview to do that any longer. These are municipalities of the Province of Quebec, and the Province of Quebec has largely assumed those kinds of responsibilities. To ask if we are monitoring more broadly housing conditions in other aboriginal communities, I'm not sure.

Mr. Corbin.

• 1045

Mr. Ian Corbin: Certainly, on reserve, we have annual reports of housing conditions on reserve that are produced—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: But not off reserve. The question is, if we have an implementation agreement with the Province of Quebec, do we not have some responsibility to make sure it's being implemented?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I'm sorry, sir, we do not have an implementation agreement with the Province of Quebec. We have an implementation agreement with Makivik Corporation, signed in 1990.

In 1981 we signed an agreement that in fact transferred to the Province of Quebec Indian and Northern Affairs responsibilities for housing for the Inuit of north Quebec under sections 29.0.40 and 29.0.41. We delivered those, and there was no monitoring process set up there. Whoever signed that agreement in that day—and I wasn't there—deemed that we were transferring a responsibility and there was no longer any need for the federal government to monitor against that agreement. It was a full and final settlement we had.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: In hindsight, do you think that was a wise move, not to have set up some monitoring provisions?

Mr. Terry Henderson: With all due respect, sir, I would not speculate on that. I see different agreements with different kinds of terms and conditions, depending upon the nature of the agreement.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Well, I guess I'll speculate then that clearly we should have. We are charged with the responsibility of governing in Canada and for implementing, and obviously your job is to implement agreements, whether they are good ones or not. If we recognize that there are deficiencies or shortcomings in any agreement, then I think we have to dispense the advice. The problem is the advice is not being taken.

I don't know, maybe we have to refresh some memories here. But clearly, Mr. Chairman, the point of the exercise today was to get some answers, and I presume the questions were given to you in advance as to what was raised. Obviously, my own estimation is that the answers, for whatever reason, are not sufficient, and that's regrettable, whether that's your responsibility or not.

I am very much of the view that we'd better get the minister in and tell the minister very quickly that either....maybe I'll ask her to speculate. I want somebody to tell me whether special provisions can be created and how we can do that. Let's just get this on the table and deal with it. We seem to be spending billions of dollars—if we are spending that kind of money down here, we shouldn't have these difficulties.

I agree with you, sir, whether there's homeless—and in the GTA I have a homeless situation that we're finally recognizing. But this is something we're finally recognizing, and maybe it's been a problem for five, ten, whatever number of years. We're looking at problems here that have existed for a hell of a lot longer, and I don't think we've developed the political will to deal with them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wilfert. Mr. Henderson, was the agreement on the transfer to the province of Quebec signed at the request of the province, or is it the result of a federal initiative?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: I'm not sure I have the answer to that question, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Could you prepare an answer for the minister, so that she might give it to us during a future meeting?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: We will take note of the question.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Before recognizing Mr. Thompson, I would like to tell committee members that I am well aware of Mr. Henderson's qualifications; he is an excellent public servant. I know that this isn't easy; what we are hearing today is sad and moving, and I would like to thank him for his candour. He is perhaps one of the only officials who speaks from the heart. Thank you very much.

Mr. Thompson.

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Chairman, did Mr. Corbin have a comment he wanted to make before we...?

Mr. Ian Corbin: I just wanted to clarify a point about the monitoring of conditions in aboriginal communities. There is an aboriginal peoples' survey that's done as an adjunct to the census. There was one done in 1995. There was another one done in 1991. So there is information about housing conditions as part of that survey.

• 1050

Mr. Myron Thompson: I read on November 20, Mr. Henderson or Mr. Corbin, a small article in the Ottawa Citizen that claimed that up to 25%, or probably more, of the reserves are mismanaged. Are you aware of that report coming from the Department of Indian Affairs?

Mr. Terry Henderson: No, I'm sorry, sir, I'm not aware of the report nor did I read the article.

Mr. Myron Thompson: It's a November 20 article that this report came from Indian Affairs.

Could you tell me who would be responsible for making that kind of an observation if it came out of the department?

Mr. Terry Henderson: No, I'm sorry, I can't even speculate on that. We have a number of programs within our department, but I can't imagine where that kind of information would have come from.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Okay.

I would like to suggest, rather than carrying on—I agree with my colleague across the way. We've identified, and I think everybody's aware, that there's a crisis, not just in the north, but also in many other reserves. I think everybody's aware of that.

The chairman is suggesting we call in the army. I've made a motion this morning that we get the minister in here, pronto. It's a notice of motion, which we'll talk about the next time we meet.

I wonder, now that we have eight individuals here, Mr. Chairman, if it's possible we could move this motion forward and get some action with regard to it to get the minister in here as soon as possible. I don't see any point in waiting any longer. We have all identified that there's a serious situation. We all agree there is.

We've also just found out that these gentlemen are not the ones that have to be sitting in front of us to take action. Let's get the minister in as quickly as we can.

The Treasury Board minister, the House leader of the government...you know who I mean over there; your House leader has encouraged all ministers to come before these committees.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, permission to move this motion forward at this time, with eight members here, to bring the minister in as quickly as possible regarding the crisis situation in housing.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

I know that we don't have a quorum. In order to have a quorum, we need nine members. We can discuss this at the next meeting. We should be having one this week. I know that there are officials here until 11 o'clock, and we are expecting a group at 11 o'clock.

However, you motion has been tabled, Mr. Thompson. We have taken note of it, and it will be forwarded to all the members who are absent today because they are currently attending other meetings.

Is that all right? I think that we are in agreement to discuss Mr. Thompson's motion at the next meeting.

[English]

At the next meeting.

Mr. Myron Thompson: When would the next meeting be, Mr. Chairman? Are you talking about 11 o'clock this morning?

[Translation]

The Chairman: No, Thursday. At eleven this morning, we will be hearing the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. I think we are in agreement to vote at the next meeting. Your notice of motion has been tabled. We have taken note of it.

Ms. Longfield.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I guess I'd like to note for the record that Mr. Thompson has a motion that I think we should be dealing with. I guess I'm very disturbed when I see that there are two parties that aren't here. This is the second time we've been in this situation as a committee where members from the opposition haven't shown up.

Mr. Chair, perhaps if you could talk to the whips from the other parties and indicate that they've taken on a responsibility and this is something we should be doing. We shouldn't be held hostage because members aren't here, and in particular there are two parties that aren't here today. The business of this committee can't move forward, and I for one find that very disturbing.

[Translation]

The Chairman: That's a very good point, Ms. Longfield. We are taking note of this, and I will be contacting the members from the other party, today, to ask them to attend.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I have just a very brief remark on that. If we fail to get the turnout from the opposition parties at this committee when we're handling situations this sensitive, then I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we should contemplate changing the rules of quorum so that we can do without some members who can't be bothered coming here.

I see the clerk is shaking her head and saying it's not possible. I regret, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you for that comment.

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: It's not often that we're short of members and we don't have a quorum. I don't want to speak on behalf of other opposition members who have other responsibilities and come to their defence, but I don't believe we need any lectures from members opposite and I wouldn't say that opposition members are in the habit of missing meetings. It happens to you people too. I think we have to show some understanding on both sides.

• 1055

I don't think that the standing orders allow us to discuss the fact that we may not have a quorum right now. Mr. Bryden says that we should change the number of members needed for quorum, but we don't have one yet. I think we should wait until we have a quorum to discuss such an important motion.

The Chairman: You're right, Mr. Fournier. We will discuss this at the next meeting. Ms. Karetak-Lindell, do you have a question?

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

I just have another question for CMHC. When you're doing surveys or trying to find out housing needs, is there a definition for homeless?

Ms. Deborah Taylor: I'm not aware of an absolute definition of homeless, but that's something I can look into for you. We have a definition of those in need, and those in poor housing need would be in households that have to spend more than 30% of their income to access suitable, adequate accommodation. Suitability would be based on the size of the unit for the number of members of the household. Adequate would refer to units that are up to health and safety standards. But there has been a lot of work done recently on the homeless situation in terms of trying to come to grips with what the definition is and how to count people who have no current place to live.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: We need to realize that we're also dealing with a homeless situation, instead of just using the word “overcrowding”. We're just short of housing, and those people really would be out on the streets if the weather, the temperature, wasn't too cold for people to be homeless. They really are people who have no place to go, and that's why they're so crowded in some homes.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: That's a good point. Thank you, Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With the arrival of my colleague, I believe we have a quorum. Could we deal with the motion I presented earlier?

[Translation]

The Chairman: You're right, Mr. Thompson. You may.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I would think there's such enthusiasm for this motion that there could be a seconder on this side. I would be delighted to second the motion.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do you want to read it out?

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: It is moved by Mr. Thompson that the Minister of Indian Affairs be requested to appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity to address the performance reviews of the department.

Mr. John Bryden: Now I have to go into debate.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Moved by Mr. Thompson and seconded by Mr. Bryden. Would anyone like to debate the motion?

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I would just like to observe something. I want to support this motion—indeed, I've seconded it—but I wonder if the original mover might contemplate an amendment—moved by one of my colleagues perhaps, or by Mr. Fournier—that would more closely focus the motion on the situation at hand. My difficulty is with the motion as it is now phrased. The minister could be here for hours dealing with general questions, dealing with the reserve situation, or dealing with the department in general. If Mr. Thompson is in agreement and somebody will move the amendment, I would like to change the motion so that it pertains specifically to the social housing crisis. We could obviously focus it on the situation in northern Quebec. If you're in agreement on the social housing crisis among aboriginals, we could also make it sufficiently broad to also have the minister field more general questions that would take things outside of just northern Quebec.

• 1100

But the motion currently phrased would open the minister to all kinds of questions that would deflect us, I think, from our original intent, which is to deal with this current crisis.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I agree with Mr. Bryden; we should amend the motion so it deals with a specific issue, namely the housing crisis. It's the most important issue, and that's what we would like to debate. There should be just one item on the agenda, the housing crisis, so that we can solve this crisis as quickly as possible and so that the meeting can be held as quickly as possible.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden, do you want to include it in this motion or would you like to move a separate motion?

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I think what we have to do is Mr. Fournier has to move an amendment to the original motion, it has to be seconded by someone, and then we vote twice and we have this situation solved.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I move an amendment.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether Mr. Thompson would consider that to be a friendly amendment, so we don't have to simply just....

Mr. Myron Thompson: Gentlemen, the crisis is the housing shortage. People are suffering. If this will hurry up the process, of course I'll support that.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You could withdraw that one and just put the—

Mr. Myron Thompson: Whatever. Get her in here and let's fix the problem.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, exactly. I think he agrees, and we all agree. So let's move on.

Mr. John Bryden: Do you want to rephrase the motion?

Mr. Myron Thompson: Okay, I move that the minister be brought in as soon as possible regarding the housing crisis we're facing in the northern Quebec regions, as well as in all reserves across the land.

Mr. John Bryden: Phrase it a little bit closer than that, Myron. It should be the social housing crisis affecting aboriginals. That gets everyone, including the Inuit.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'm not the expert on the words. You put the words in and let's get it going.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Iftody.

[English]

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to understand this correctly and summarize the discussion, in particular Mr. Thompson's motion to bring the minister in.

If I understand correctly from the questioning, we've agreed the social housing crisis on all of the reserves is not a result of mismanagement on the reserves. It's not the chiefs' fault. It's more of a political problem in terms of allocation of scarce dollars and these kinds of things.

Is that what we're agreeing to? I just wanted to clarify that.

Mr. Myron Thompson: No, not necessarily so.

Mr. David Iftody: Because part of the debate, and I think questions from this side of the bench to Mr. Henderson concluded—this is how we got to this idea of having the minister appear before the committee—it was a political problem. It was a problem of funding. It was not a problem of micromanagement on the reserves with the chiefs.

I just want to understand the specific very, very clear purpose of what we're trying to....

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

This should be part of the debate on the motion. With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, we need to get the motion on the floor, written and seconded, and then we can debate what we understand the intentions of the motion to be.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I'm sorry. Ms. Fisher will read out the motion again.

[English]

The Clerk: Are we then including the performance report? Are we adding—

Mr. John Bryden: No.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Chairman: Don't worry about the performance report. Just deal with the crisis, and we'll take care of the other later.

The Clerk: Is it aboriginal housing?

Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes, aboriginal housing across the nation.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, that's right.

The Clerk: It is moved that the Minister of Indian Affairs be requested to appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity to address the aboriginal social housing crisis across Canada.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Suits me.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay. I second it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will now vote on the motion. Who is in favour of the motion?

[English]

Mr. David Iftody: I have a point of order, please.

[Translation]

The Chairman: A point of order from Mr. Iftody.

• 1105

[English]

Mr. David Iftody: I would like to have some debate on this before we vote, as my colleague suggested. I am still seeking a clarification of what we've discussed here this morning. I want to make a very clear distinction between what we've decided is important and what we've decided is not important with respect to this undertaking and this thoughtful inquiry into this very difficult problem.

I want to make it very clear if we've decided to exclude some things in this process. I want to make sure I understood Mr. Thompson very clearly on this and his remarks to Mr. Henderson, which were somewhat clarified by some of my colleagues as the discussion went on. I listened carefully. I didn't ask any questions this morning at all. The reason we are bringing in the minister is that we have summarily concluded that the reason for the crisis, we believe, is generally a political one.

The issue is not a question of mismanagement at the local level with respect to the Inuit, the mayors who have appeared before us. It is not a question of foolish spending and unwise spending of scarce dollars. They have their problem.

Likewise, Mr. Thompson said that in his visits to some of these reserves, he's found them living in school buses in deplorable situations.

If I can reiterate his comments to the committee, when he's talked to the chief and council they say, it's not our problem. Here's the only money we have. It's the department's problem.

The department is saying, here's the scarce resources and the dollars we have to deal with it. That's the allocation we have.

So we have concluded therefore that it's a political problem. Do we understand that it's not a problem with respect to the administration on the reserves?

It's also not a problem with these gentlemen and ladies appearing here as the bureaucrats administering that program. It is a political problem, globally described in terms of a lack of funding, and that's precisely why we're asking the minister to come here. Am I clear on that?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Iftody. Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that we have identified through the representations that have gone on at this committee that there's a public policy issue here. The issue is clearly not being addressed for whatever reason.

So my understanding is that we're telling the minister, who presumably will have been briefed on all of the questions that have gone around the table over the last month or so, that we want to seek a quick solution to the issue. Back in December 1992, the same comments were being made in the standing committee report.

The fact is it's not being administered. It's a question of political will and administration. Whether it's at the local level or the Quebec government level or the Canadian government level, I'm not interested in pointing the finger. I was interested in making sure the minister was aware that we have had these representations.

These representations that have been collaborated over the last month clearly identified social problems that I believe her department needs to address. We want to talk to her about whether or not there is a type of mechanism that can be created.

Clearly, at the end the buck will stop with the minister. Therefore, if we're going to be effective as a committee we need to have the minister here. So if my colleague is asking whether or not we're just looking at the administration, I don't want to preclude what it is we are in fact asking the minister.

I think we're asking the minister about public policy. We're asking about how we are administering, how we are not monitoring, etc.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for coming in late. Following up on what Mr. Wilfert just said, I would presume that if the minister would appear before the committee, she's going to give a state of the union address, if I can use that kind of term. She's going to give us a statement with regard to how she as the head of her department sees the situation.

• 1110

I would hate to think we would prejudge where we might go with our questions in any direction. I don't think we should be focusing on any one particular area. We should have the freedom as a committee to go—

Mr. David Iftody: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I object to this absolutely. This is not a free-for-all.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Iftody.

[English]

Mr. David Iftody: Yes, thank you, sir.

This is not a free-for-all. I'm not going to agree to have the minister appear here for a free-for-all. We have a question period in the committee as a whole, Mr. Chairman, for these kinds of questions for the opposition to ask of the minister any question that they so desire.

If the minister is going to appear, and there was a motion put forward by this committee, I would ask the committee members to think through very clearly about what we're going to ask her to answer when we appear before this committee. If it's going to be a global exercise, this is not, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, the proper forum for it.

We must agree very precisely on the nature of the questioning and what we want her to prepare for and answer when she comes to this committee. If we're talking about a social housing crisis, then let's stick to the topic. Then I'd like to narrow it down for them.

You can't start asking the minister questions about the administration of areas that fall out of her constitutional responsibility for off-reserve aboriginal people on the one hand. On the second level, again, I'm getting into questions about the administration of scarce funds on the reserve. Let's be a little fair in this and a little more precise in the questioning.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Scott. Pardon me, you hadn't finished.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: Basically, the committee, in my view, is quite within its rights to ask the minister any questions with respect to programs that her department is responsible for funding, either directly or indirectly. Whether it's a political problem or whether it's an administrative problem, it appears to be a funding issue. The committee is quite within its rights and it's quite within the expectations of the committee to ask the minister what we think are the appropriate questions with regard to all of the issues surrounding aboriginal housing.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Bryden now has the floor, followed by Mr. Thompson.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the good will of this committee is getting derailed a little bit here.

First of all, Mr. Scott, with great respect, you missed the debate that went on for the last two hours here in which we identified some very serious problems with respect to the management of aboriginal social housing.

I don't consider the parliamentary secretary...he has misunderstood your remark. It's just that we had a debate about the wording of the motion, which I seconded, which Mr. Thompson agreed with. The very wording in the motion indicates that the focus of our questions are going to be on the social housing crisis, not about all the other aspects of administration.

However, the reality is that any member of this committee, on any side of the table, can, of course, ask the minister whatever question that committee member wants to ask when the minister is before us.

We all understand proper protocol and due courtesy to one another and to the minister, and the motion is about social housing. I would expect the majority of the questions will deal with that. I would expect there will be intelligent and responsible questions and the minister will constructively add to the debate and hopefully to the solution to the problem.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden. Mr. Thompson.

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you. I just wanted to add that I agree about the crisis. These people are in a bad situation. There is going to be some terrible suffering going on if we don't address that problem. I don't know if we need more funding, so I think Mr. Iftody is wrong in asking whether this is going to be a question about getting more funding. That's not the question at all.

It may be the result of getting more funding in order to accomplish the mission, but whatever it takes to accomplish the mission, that's important. Perhaps there is mismanagement, I don't know. There are reports coming in. The minister should be able to supply some information about, for example, the findings on the Stoney Reserve, where I know a complete audit has been done and we're waiting for the report on that.

Let's stick to the idea of getting this problem resolved. If you just want to narrow it down to whether or not we are going to throw more money at it, let's get away from that thought.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Mr. Iftody.

[English]

Mr. David Iftody: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that members get a copy of the transcript of the discussion that's gone on here at the end of this meeting. You'll find that there was a logic leading up to ask the minister to appear. The two fundamental building blocks were, first, there was a problem and we all agreed on that, and, second, we started asking why. One of the first areas we went to discuss this was the possibility that perhaps some of the funds aren't being administered properly. They're not understanding the problems on the reserves. This has been a debate in the committee as a whole for two months, frankly. We've been laying the blame for a lot of these problems at the feet of the chief and councillors, for example. That's not new to anyone here.

• 1115

Another venue from that path of logic we went down was the reason we called these ladies and gentlemen forward here today. We thought that if it's not a problem with the Inuit mayors, or if it's not a problem with the chiefs and councils, surely to goodness it's these intransigent bureaucrats who don't want to do their jobs properly and so on. They're holding up the deal. So we brought these good people here today. We've now discovered that they're perhaps not the problem. It may lie somewhere else.

I want everyone to agree that the reason we came to ask the minister to appear was that we've eliminated the idea that it's a problem with Mr. Henderson or Mr. Levesque or Ms. Taylor, that it's not a problem—

Mr. John Bryden: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I can't agree before I hear witnesses. I'm here to—

Mr. David Iftody: But, John, you agreed to that in your logic for having the minister here.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Iftody, Mr. Bryden, we agree anyway. The officials who are here today have done good work. They have done excellent work, and they have come to give testimony before us. We will continue the debate.

Mr. Iftody.

[English]

Mr. David Iftody: Thank you very much. I appreciate Mr. Bryden. I agree with your comment. He is an excellent committee member and an excellent member of Parliament. And I also understand the needs of the opposition members in terms of the role they play here, but I think it's important to keep some focus and some logic to the whole process here. That's why I'm asking members whether they agree that, in the line of questioning for the minister when she does appear....

Do we have a motion dealing with a large, broadly based thing, to the extent that we can bring up files that are being investigated by the police on the Stoney Reserve, Mr. Chairman? Is that what the chair is agreeing to in this motion? Or are we dealing with a very specific motion, as we would in the committee of the whole, when we're asked to vote on a particular motion? When somebody brings forth a motion in the House, surely to goodness it deals with a specific matter. This is very broadly based and unfocused. I'm therefore asking members to clarify their thinking so that when the minister comes, we're dealing with a very specific issue. That's a simple and fair request, don't you think?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Iftody. Ms. Longfield.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: We're going to spend more time debating whether the minister should come and we're not going to have the minister here.

Look, I don't think any of us have pointed the finger at chiefs or individual aboriginal bands or Inuit communities. We have a crisis . We're asking the minister to come here to talk about those things that are under her purview. Very quickly, I don't think anybody on this committee wants to widen the scope beyond what the federal government's responsibility is. I think we should put the question. I think we'll do it, and I think we will act appropriately.

We had members of the department here who obviously can't answer the questions because some of the questions have to do with government policy or our opinions. It's not up to these gentlemen to defend government policy. What we're asking is for the minister to come here to give her views and for us to be able to ask her questions. With all due respect, I don't have the opportunity in the House of Commons to raise those issues on a regular basis. We want to do it as a committee, with all members of the committee here. I think our approach to our responsibility as members of Parliament has always been to act in an appropriate fashion when we have a minister before us, and I don't see that we're going to act any differently this time.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Longfield. In any event, the housing crisis in Nunavik is currently the main problem north of the 60th parallel. The situation is explosive. We are lucky that winter is coming. It's going to be difficult, but we must find some solutions.

The officials have done a very good job of telling us about the prevailing situation, about the James Bay convention and so on. We learned a great deal this morning.

Sorry, Mr. Thompson. I have to give Mr. Fournier the floor.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I really don't understand why the debate is dragging on. A motion has been made to invite the Minister. All we have to do is meet with her. We are wondering about the questions that are going to be asked. I think that you're underestimating the committee members. It makes no sense.

• 1120

This discussion is pointless. The motion was passed unanimously. Everyone agrees to have the Minister appear. So I think we've had enough discussion. We have to trust each other a little bit.

We may not be as talented as my colleague opposite, but we can ask questions that the Minister will understand. She's a person just like us. We are familiar with the problem up there. It's not all that complicated, and we are familiar with the problem and the issue. There aren't enough housing units, the problem has reached crisis proportions, and we are able to explain it to her. So why delay the debate? We have other things to do.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier. Mr. Thompson.

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: First, people need to be put into a shelter for the winter. How are we going to accomplish that? What's the solution?

Secondly, that's a quick solution for a problem that has started up, but what are we going to do to make sure this problem doesn't continue? I'm sure you don't want to have to go through the same thing every year to address the housing situation, so we need to talk about the causes.

There are going to be a number of things we're going to talk about. You're going to ask if you can bring the army in, I understand. You think that's a good idea.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I think that's an excellent question.

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: You bring them in on all the other crises, and if that's what it takes, then I agree.

I also understand what Mr. Iftody's job is. I wouldn't dare to mention that here, but I'll talk to him in private about his job sometime. But let's get on with getting these people into shelter, period.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You know, Mr. Thompson, if there were a crisis in Iran or in the Persian Gulf or somewhere else in the world, the air force's engines would already be running. I wish they were already running for Nunavik.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Thank you.

I think Mr. Thompson said most of what I was going to say. We're really looking for a solution to how to deal with the housing situation. A bunch of committee members already did all our homework, and I think it would be a good opportunity to find out where some of those recommendations are as far as resolving the housing situation is concerned. But I'd also like to remind the members that there are also some witnesses who are still waiting to speak to us. We've kept them waiting for almost half an hour now. So I think we've sort of agreed....

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you for that remark, Ms. Karetak-Lindell. Mr. Iftody will be the last speaker, since he asked for the floor before you.

[English]

Mr. David Iftody: I take Nancy's point here in terms of not making the witnesses wait any longer. I just have a question before we vote on the motion.

Given the nature of the debate and the logic—well, I guess we don't work by logic here—wouldn't it be perhaps necessary to ask the minister responsible for CMHC to come before the committee? Isn't there also a danger particularly for the off-reserve people? The Minister of Indian Affairs doesn't have responsibility for these people.

We're going to be a very frustrated committee here. Again, I'm trying to focus on the minister's legislative, legal responsibilities. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if it's for the Inuit and off-reserve, the minister is not going to be able to properly answer those kinds of questions.

We can waste our time. If that's what you want to do, then that's fine.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Iftody. Mr. Thompson has asked a question. Shall we vote? The Clerk will read the motion out again.

[English]

The Clerk: It has been moved that the Minister of Indian Affairs be requested to appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity to address the aboriginal social housing crisis across Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: It seems to me that we just voted on that.

The Chairman: No, there was a point of order.

(The motion carries)

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Before we dismiss the witnesses, could I have just two minutes to ask a very quick couple of questions?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

• 1125

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I just wanted to very quickly pick up on something that's in the purview of Ms. Taylor at CMHC. I understand that in devolving the social housing responsibility to Quebec, it amounts to about $86 million. Then I understood from Ms. Taylor that CMHC has had an agreement whereby it is funding Quebec's share of social housing in these communities to the tune of about $25 million a year. Is that understanding relatively correct?

Ms. Deborah Taylor: No. It's not that we're funding Quebec's share; it's that the federal government is contributing approximately $25 million a year toward the cost of subsidizing the Inuit housing. The balance is made up by the province of Quebec.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, I understand that. If I may request it, I would like to know the total value of the federal government's contribution to social housing through CMHC, with the $86 million added on, and then I would like the number of social housing units that were created from the time that agreement came into force to the present day, so I can get a per unit value of the social housing that has been created.

Mr. Henderson, if I may move on to you, as I understand it, no one has been able to monitor this agreement. Can I suggest then that we could possibly ask—and I'll ask you if this is appropriate—the Auditor General to review the social housing agreement that has been devolved to Quebec, to report back either through you or to this committee on just whether the federal government has served the people properly by devolving responsibility for social housing to Quebec. Can we get the Auditor General to do that?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I'm not sure whether we can or not. I think it would depend on the terms and conditions of the agreement we signed in 1981. We'd have to go back and consider that.

Mr. John Bryden: I point out to you that under freedom of information and access legislation, which exists in the various provinces, it is perfectly possible for your department to get the necessary documents from Quebec without even turning to the witnesses to find out the basic facts of how Quebec has fulfilled its obligations under the devolution that took place in the 1980s with respect to this.

May I suggest to you that you explore a way of coming back to this committee with some assessment, however you achieve it—through documentation, through research, and you can use your own staff—that will give this committee some idea of whether this devolution of social housing to Quebec has in fact been an efficient way of serving the Inuit communities in northern Quebec. Can you do that?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I will take your message back. I cannot make a commitment that we will do that, sir.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, then I would like a response as early as possible, because if you don't do it, I sure will, because I know how to do it if you don't know how to do it.

My next question—and I'll be very brief and finish, Mr. Chairman, because we have other witnesses—is this. We also heard that there seems to be no monitoring—and I'm not criticizing the department for this—of the social conditions in these Inuit communities because they're municipalities. Can I ask your department to strike a task force consisting of one individual from your department and one individual from Health Canada to do a tour of these communities forthwith so that we can have an independent report from you that will tell us whether the witnesses who appeared before us earlier have correctly stated the social conditions as a result of the social housing crisis in these communities, whether they have correctly stated it, understated it, or overstated it.

The difficulty we have here is we're bringing the minister before us and we have no independent testimony that these conditions, as described to us, are the way in which they have been described to us, short of going as a committee and touring every community ourselves. This is something that surely could be done in a matter of a week or two by just dispatching two people to go from one community to another and then have them report back here and tell us whether or not there is indeed a particular problem in Nunavut. Is that possible to do? Can I charge you with that?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I cannot make a commitment to do that kind of thing, sir. A lot depends upon Health Canada's potential participation in that whole question. My own preference would be to proceed with the dispute resolution mechanism we have and allow that to unfold—

Mr. John Bryden: But that takes months.

• 1130

Mr. Terry Henderson: —as opposed to proceeding with different avenues in parallel.

Mr. John Bryden: Just a final thing. My difficulty here is that we are faced with a crisis that none of the officials knows is a crisis or are prepared to tell us is a crisis. One way or another, Mr. Chairman, if the officials cannot do it.... I hope you'll at least reply to the chairman, and if you can't do it, then I hope you'll come back to this committee and we'll try to deal with the problem ourselves with our own recommendations.

Thank you for your candour. Incidentally, you have been very helpful, all of you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Do you have something to add, Mr. Henderson?

Mr. Terry Henderson: That's all.

The Chairman: I would like to thank all of you. You were notified of this committee meeting at the last minute, it's true, but since you don't want the crisis to last for months and months, you hastened in to answer our questions. Your abilities and competence are well known. You certainly were able to enlighten us on several points this morning, and we thank you very much.

The Inuit leaders and the families and children of Nunavik want decent housing. The year 2000 is almost upon us, and we are spending millions of dollars on many different projects.

Thank you for coming today. We are going to suspend for two minutes until the other witnesses arrive. Thank you for your excellent work and thank you for being here.

• 1132

• 1141

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)): The chairman asked me to take this part of the meeting.

I want to welcome Okalik, president of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, and Violet Ford, who is with us today. I appreciate that you have given us something here. Welcome, and carry on, please.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak (President, Inuit Tapirisat of Canada):

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in Inuktitut]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like to confuse people and start in Inuktitut.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I was just trying to get the translation there.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: You don't have it.

With me is Ms. Violet Ford. She's my executive assistant from Labrador, and Mr. John Cheechoo is my public relations person at ITC.

Thank you for the opportunity to hear me again in front of this committee. I'm sorry I missed the presentation last week by Makivik when we were also scheduled to appear before you.

As you know, ITC is comprised of four Inuit regions. Inuit Tunngavik Incorporated is on my board. Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Makivik Corporation, and the Labrador Inuit Association sit on the board as well. We have ex officio members, Pauktuutit, the Inuit Women's Association, and the National Inuit Youth Council.

I am sorry I missed the presentation this morning, but I'm very glad to have caught the last few minutes of it.

ITC firmly believes it is essential to keep the lines of communication open to facilitate the development of solutions to the many challenges facing Inuit across Canada, not just in Nunavik. Although ITC looks after many issues for Inuit, my presentation will focus on housing, decentralization, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

As we heard this morning, housing is not only a problem in Nunavik; it's an Inuit crisis. ITC has been directed by the board of directors to make housing a priority item. Just as Canada is being heralded as one of the best countries in the world to live in, Inuit families are crammed into housing conditions the average Canadian would think are deplorable and similar to third world standards. I think most of the committee members here agree to that, based on the discussion this morning.

The current housing crisis finds its roots over 40 years ago when Inuit families were moved by the federal government to permanent communities in order to gain access to government services, including government-supplied housing. Rapid population growth, an under-developed economy, and the lack of funding for Inuit housing have all led to the housing crisis we are now facing. In addition, Inuit have only rarely been consulted in regard to the design and implementation of housing policies—or pulling them—programs, or funding strategies. This must change.

• 1145

The situation took a severe turn for the worse in 1993 when the federal government cut funding for the construction of new social housing units. While this funding continues for on-reserve status Indians, Inuit are literally left out in the cold and left to compete with non-Inuit for scarce social housing units. Despite numerous appeals to the federal government, the housing situation has declined sharply for the past five years. Five years ago we already had a housing shortage.

ITC believes that, just as you are, the Canadian public would also be deeply ashamed of these conditions and that a concerted effort to address this situation is warranted. I was happy to hear that the resolution passed this morning.

ITC proposes that the solution to the housing crisis is the development of an Inuit-specific housing policy, a policy that enables Inuit needs and priorities to be defined by us. In addition, ITC has put forth the position that renewed federal funding for social housing for Inuit needs to be reinstated to the 1991 levels at the very least. This funding should be secure and long term in order to provide the stability and resources required to address the critical needs in our community.

While ITC has not had time to sufficiently study in detail the recent Assembly of First Nation's proposal to tie the construction of 21,000 new housing units to an economic development tool, there are significant similarities in several key elements between AFN's proposal and our own, such as the need to reduce the reliance upon southern-based and non-Inuit communities.

Labour regulations have to be changed for Inuit participation. Northern solutions to the housing crisis should be encouraged. Inuit communities should be given professional consideration in regard to the bidding on housing contracts. New means for increasing the financial resources available for housing construction should be explored.

In short, the construction of housing in Inuit communities should benefit the people living in our communities. Community-directed needs assessment, a central database for housing information, additional support for housing construction and maintenance training programs, and linking housing to other socio-economic programs are options that should be explored in order to enhance the social spin-off of housing. I think we already have your assistance in our efforts for an Inuit-specific housing policy. Housing is a basic human right, a human right for adequate shelter.

With all due respect to the minister of CMHC, when we met with him in June he couldn't make any commitments. He couldn't make any decisions without first consulting with the minister of DIAND.

With regard to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the continued ban on seal products to the United States under the MMPA is another key issue of concern to Inuit. The act prohibits the importation of any seal products due to the misconception that seals are an endangered species. No species of seals are endangered in any of the Inuit regions, or in Canada, for that matter. The continuation of this restriction based on false information still places a severe hardship on Inuit communities, who continue to rely on the harvesting of wildlife, including seals, for subsistence, as well as for an important source of cash.

The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), of which the U.S. is a signatory, does not ban trade in seal products in recognition of the fact that they are not endangered.

• 1150

ITC asks you and the federal government to take strong action and leadership in persuading the U.S. to revise and amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to make it consistent with CITES and eliminate this contradiction in their trade policies. This issue offers a prime example of how the federal government can assist in strengthening the economic development of aboriginal peoples in the spirit of partnership as envisioned in Gathering Strength.

The federal government has previously made strenuous efforts to remove trade barriers for Canadian agricultural and lumber products. We feel strongly that the government should also work with ITC to address this unreasonable barrier to an important element of the Inuit economy.

On the issue of decentralization or the issue of north of 60.... Okay, I had four issues.

Although the DIAND minister, Jane Stewart, has responded to our concerns about the federal government's primary responsibility for Inuit—I'd like to see the legislation that says neither she nor DIAND is responsible—ITC was not completely satisfied with her response.

As we are currently in discussions with the department on Inuit-specific policies and programs and renewing the relationship between Inuit and the federal government, we trust our concerns will be addressed in the course of these discussions. We choose to reserve our final opinion pending the conclusion.

I believe that at my last presentation I passed out the Inuit-specific action plan to the committee members. If you would like a copy anyway, we could make sure you get one.

While ITC takes the response from the minister to mean that the federal government continues to maintain primary responsibility for all Inuit, we would like the standing committee to endorse this position as we see the minister's most recent statement to be at odds with the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of May 20 in Quebec City. At this meeting, the federal government asserted that it did not have primary responsibility for aboriginal peoples living in provinces except for status Indians living on reserve. We have interpreted this statement to mean that the federal government is trying to renege on its responsibility for Inuit in Quebec and Labrador. As a result, this has raised questions concerning the federal government's relationship with the Inuit in general. It suggests that the relationship with the government is based on where they live and not who they are.

The Quebec City statement is also at odds with the assurances given by the previous minister, the Hon. Bill McKnight. He reaffirmed that the federal government would not be changing its position with respect to its responsibility for Inuit and that it has no intention of passing on such responsibility to provincial governments.

As the national organization representing all Inuit in Canada, the ITC rejects the position that the federal government has less responsibility for Inuit in provinces. ITC believes that the federal position has to be consistent with their responsibilities under the various land claim arrangements, the federal government's fiduciary responsibility to Inuit, section 91.24 of the Constitution Act, and the Supreme Court decision indicating that section 91.24 has to be read to include Inuit.

We brought copies of the recent correspondence, Mr. McKnight's letter, and a Quebec City press release for your information.

With regard to decentralization, ITC is concerned over reports that suggest that DIAND is considering the decentralization of the northern affairs program to Yellowknife. Given that the program is one of the few areas of significant activity not linked to first nations, and given that the majority of Inuit in Canada will not be living in that territory that will be created in what is currently the western NWT, and given the federal government's statement in the Quebec City meeting, ITC objects to any study and other actions to facilitate possible decentralization of the northern affairs program without immediate and comprehensive consultation with Inuit at the national level. Doesn't the department think any decentralization of northern affairs should go where the activity is in an Inuit community, after consultation?

• 1155

The issues I have pointed out in this presentation are just a few examples that are Inuit-specific, which will ultimately call for the development of policies and programs that are also Inuit-specific. The success of such policies and programs will depend on the government's efforts to consult with Inuit. As a people we face challenges based on who we are, where we are located, and where we find ourselves within the federal structure of Canada.

I'd like to remind you and the federal government again that Inuit are one of the aboriginal peoples recognized under Canada's Constitution. Canada has a fiduciary responsibility for Inuit.

With that closing, I would like to be put on the mailing list for the transcripts, if that's at all possible. The last few minutes I caught this morning are significant with regard to the position of the parliamentary secretary of DIAND, because he very much contradicts our position and the government's position.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much, Madam President.

We'll move to questions, please. Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'd like to thank you for appearing before the committee today and giving us this presentation. You've raised several issues in your paper, and I'm going to deal with them as best I can.

The first one is on the issue of seal harvesting, and I certainly understand where you're coming from on that. I totally concur with what you've put in your paper. I think it's really incumbent upon the federal government, all of us here on this committee and all of us in government, to combat the myths and the misinformation that organizations like Greenpeace put out, which undermine a way of life for people in the north, not only with respect to seals but also with respect to fur and trapping and so on. It really is totally unfair and is a misrepresentation of the truth. I completely agree with your presentation there.

In your discussion here with respect to the minister's responsibility and your taking issue with the fact that it appears she's made a statement that is at odds with what you consider to be her fiduciary responsibility, I would just like to tell you, if you aren't aware of it, that this is a long-standing jurisdictional dispute that goes back to 1963, when the provinces and the federal government met to discuss who would be financially responsible for programs for aboriginal people. The federal government took very much the position that it was the provinces' responsibility, but the provinces wouldn't agree. So at the end of the day, the federal government said they would proceed to fund these programs, but they would do so under protest. You should be aware of that, that this is a long-standing dispute between the provinces and the federal government, and it has not been resolved. It's one of the issues that I personally would like to see resolved, and I don't know how that might come about, but certainly it's an issue that needs to be addressed.

On the issue of social housing, I have some questions for you. The first one is, do you have any idea how many houses are needed at the present time to address current need?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: I don't have an exact figure, but Makivik is just one region where they are short. I heard the figure this morning of 500 houses.

Makivik is the second biggest region. Nunavut is the biggest region.

• 1200

Mr. Mike Scott: In part of your presentation, you have correctly identified the fact that there are scare resources for housing, and that's very true. Then you also go on to recommend preferential treatment on the bidding process. I have a question.

I used to be in the contracting business before I got into this business, and I take this recommendation as a little bit of a contradiction. If in fact you recognize that you have scarce resources and you want to get the most for your money, wouldn't it in fact make more sense to take the lowest bidder every time? That way you're going to get the absolute maximum number of house constructed, rather than going with a preferential bidding system.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Yes, you have a point there, but most governments have an aboriginal procurement policy that needs to be followed, and sometimes it's not followed. When we say “preferential consideration”, yes, if we went for the lowest bid, we might get more houses, but the economic spinoffs don't stay in the community; they go outside the community.

Mr. Mike Scott: I appreciate that, but I guess what I'm trying to come to is, are we trying to address the social housing problem or are we trying to address other economic problems that exist within some of these communities? I have a difficult time with this. I really believe the way you're going to get the maximum use of your resources is to go with the low bidder. Then if you start going away from that, you may very well get some social spinoffs, but you'll get less housing as a result of that as well. I think that's something you should consider.

I have one last question, and then I'll let my colleagues across the way take over. In talking about the federal government's fiduciary responsibility and about the current problem with, we call it, a housing crisis—it's been described that way this morning, and I take at face value what you've said in here, that many families are sharing small quarters and that these are very deplorable conditions. But I also ask you if it is your view, in considering the fiduciary responsibility—and put aside for the moment, if you will, the current crisis, because it certainly is a need that needs to be met and addressed, and the committee, as you've heard, is certainly going to be looking into it—that the federal government has a lasting responsibility, which means as far as you can see into the future, to provide housing for aboriginal people?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: The short answer is yes. Who would argue the Constitution. I ended my presentation by reminding the committee that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility under section 91.24, with a Supreme Court decision. That hasn't been challenged yet, has it?

Mr. Mike Scott: I'm not sure what you're getting at—and I'm trying to be as honest and respectful as I can—but most Canadians have to acquire their own houses with their own means. What I'm trying to ask you is whether it is your position that the federal government, and ultimately the rest of Canada, is responsible forevermore to provide housing to people in your community on an ongoing basis.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: I think you're aware that the Inuit communities don't have the resources or the base to build houses for private ownership. That's happening now in some communities, but it will take a long time for Inuit to become self-sufficient enough to own our own houses.

• 1205

Mr. Mike Scott: If the majority of Inuit people achieve that position of being self-sufficient, then you wouldn't see this as an ongoing federal fiduciary obligation to provide housing forevermore. I'm not talking about the next five years; I'm talking about on an ongoing, lasting basis.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: If it ever comes to that point.

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm glad you're here because you give me an opportunity to build on the testimony given earlier this morning.

One of the things that came out—and I do encourage you to get the transcripts—in the testimony of the witnesses is that this whole housing crisis revolves around the legalities of aboriginals, those on reserves, those off reserves. Basically, one of the reasons why, presumably, the federal government says it does not have primary responsibility for aboriginal peoples living in the provinces is because it pertains only to those status aboriginals living on reserves. The difficulty with the Inuit is that they have chosen to live in municipalities and be on their own in that sense.

Quite frankly, I don't think we're ever going to resolve the problem as long as the problem is left to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, as long as it's a problem of the Government of Canada's fiduciary responsibilities to people because they're aboriginals.

I'd like to suggest something to you. Can you see any merit in a program being developed for CMHC, for example, for social housing or for assisted housing that's aimed at Canada's remote communities? Rather than aiming it toward aboriginals, aim it to remote communities.

In your presentation you've proposed that there be an Inuit-specific housing policy, but what if instead it was remote-community-specific? We'd have to define that in the Arctic and sub-Arctic territories and perhaps northern Quebec. Is that an idea that you think might have some resonance in your home communities?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: The immediate answer is anything to address the issue right away. But going back to Mr. Scott's question, that's just putting aside the issue again of the federal government's responsibility for Inuit. Anyway, ITC represents 55 communities and approximately 52 communities are considered remote. There's no easy access to these communities.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, then it goes back to the point, and I'm going to pursue it a little bit. If we have an Inuit-specific housing policy, what if there are people in those remote communities who happen not to be Inuit? Are you going to have a housing policy that discriminates against them? Would it not be preferable to have a housing policy that is available to all people provided they live in these remote communities?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: As I said, anything to address the issue right now. There is a specific policy for on-reserve status aboriginals. Why is there not one for Inuit specifically?

Mr. John Bryden: Here you are now playing into the opposite side of the equation, and I do encourage you to look at the testimony this morning. In my view, and I can only share with you the view of an individual, as long as the government policy is circumscribed exclusively that the fiduciary responsibility is to people because they're aboriginals as opposed to being Canadians, then I don't think we're ever going to successfully progress in this. My own feeling is that Canada, the federal government, has a responsibility to all Canadians, and Canadians anywhere in the country. I don't care whether they're in a province or a territory, or wherever the heck they are. If they're in trouble, the Government of Canada has the primary responsibility to come to their assistance.

The static is this whole question that we have a first responsibility to people because they're aboriginal or otherwise. Yet I point out to you that other people who have testified here who are Inuit have stressed the point that they elected to be treated as all other Canadians because they elected to form themselves into municipalities, like most Canadians, rather than into protective reserves, like many other aboriginals.

• 1210

On that note, I should stop, Mr. Chairman.

Do you have any comments? I'm not here to lecture you. I just wanted to express my feelings.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Sure. As I said, I'll just keep reiterating that Inuit are one of the three recognized aboriginal groups, and the federal government has land claims agreements—three now, with a fourth one, hopefully, soon—that commit all parties to some obligations. I don't think aboriginal peoples are average Canadians, I guess.

I was going to add something else and I lost it.

Mr. John Bryden: I just have one other question, Mr. Chair.

Let me just narrow it down very closely then. In your proposal for an Inuit-specific housing policy for these remote communities, are you prepared to see Inuit receive social assistance housing or subsidized housing and non-Inuit communities not receive it?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: That's not what I'm saying.

Mr. John Bryden: That's fine. Please elaborate.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: That is one of the issues. For example, in Nunavut, where 85% are Inuit, we probably need 500 or 600 houses right off the bat just for the Inuit. Right now the only housing that is going up is staff housing for the Nunavut government—only staff housing. So the people who are already privileged to have jobs will get this housing.

Mr. John Bryden: Don't misunderstand the direction of my questions. I'm not suggesting that assisted housing ought not to go to the people most in need, be they Inuit or otherwise. That's fine. What I'm trying to get away from is this concept that the solution has to be Inuit-specific. I'm suggesting maybe the solution should be remote-community-specific, where the federal government fulfills its obligations. If we want to maintain these communities in the north, which are traditionally occupied by the Inuit—and I've been to these communities and I'm grateful that there are Canadians who choose to live there—I think there is an obligation on the federal government to support those people who choose to live there.

My difficulty is that I cannot make a recommendation, and I believe this is where the barrier is, that is exclusive to aboriginals in these remote communities. It may, in effect, affect only the aboriginals in those remote communities, at least in the near term because they are the most in need. I'm trying to get some sense from you of whether or not the people you represent would agree that maybe what the federal government ought to be looking at is helping people in your communities because they are remote and they need help. They're not like southern communities. They have special needs. We shouldn't be asking questions about income or whether you're status or non-status aboriginal. We should be providing assistance because you choose to live there.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Point taken.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Nancy, do you have a question?

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Not at this time.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Judy?

Thank you for your presentation and for being so forthright with the answers. As chair, I would appreciate you leaving copies of those letters you mentioned, if you could.

• 1215

I have one question relating to something near the end of your presentation, a matter of information. You say DIAND is considering the decentralization of the northern affairs program. Is this a specific program, or are you talking generally about the administration of northern affairs going to Yellowknife? If you are, that's something very new to me.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: DIAND has been doing a study on what will be involved in decentralizing the northern affairs program to Yellowknife. We've only recently been involved in the last couple of months in this study. Michael knows more about this.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Where is it being decentralized from?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: From Ottawa.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): So the primary administrative centre would not be Ottawa, as you've suggested it is now; it would maybe be Yellowknife.

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: The northern affairs program is the department we deal most directly with. The majority of Inuit aren't in Yellowknife. I think there are 300 Inuit in Yellowknife compared to 40,000 in other areas.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): There must be almost ten times as many in Iqaluit, aren't there?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): It would seem to me, with Nunavut next April, perhaps we need two centres, or perhaps we're not choosing....

I don't know the logistics, but thank you very much. You don't know the reasons or the background behind this?

Ms. Okalik Eegeesiak: No, we don't.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Maybe it's a question we can ask the minister.

Thank you very much for your attendance this morning Violet and Okalik.

This meeting is adjourned.