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, May 11, 1999

• 0909

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)): We are going to start right away because Ms. Stewart has a meeting at around 11:00 this morning, and she has to leave by 10:30 or 10:45.

Today we are considering the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, mainly votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25, L30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 under Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

• 0910

Secondly, pursuant to Standing Order 81(7), we are considering the 1999-2000 Estimates, Part III, Report on Plans and Priorities, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Canadian Polar Commission.

The Honourable Jane Stewart, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is appearing before us today. We also have witnesses from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Scott Serson and Mr. Dennis Wallace.

Mrs. Stewart, it is a pleasure to have you with us today. This is an honour for all the committee members. You have an opening statement, and I realize that you will have to leave at 10:45 for another meeting.

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

[English]

Just by way of clarification, I do have cabinet at 10 a.m., so I'll be leaving my departmental support team here to answer any more technical questions.

Given that, let me begin by thanking the committee for inviting me to come and speak about the estimates.

I have tabled with the chair formal comments. I'm wondering if it would be acceptable, rather than reading them into the record, to leave them as such and ask them to be copied into the record so that we'll have more time for questions. I would then make just a few opening remarks.

Is that appropriate? Would that be acceptable?

An hon. member: Carried.

[Translation]

The Chairman: That's fine.

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Thank you.

Statement by Hon. Jane Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for this opportunity to join you today.

Let me thank all of you, at the outset, for your hard work over the past year and for your ongoing commitment to issues which are very close to my heart and which I believe are very important to this country.

So thanks to all of you.

Well, it's been an exciting year since I last appeared before you on the Main Estimates. Canada has welcomed a new territory into our national family, we have reached an historic agreement with the Nisga'a people of British Columbia and, we have had our first full year of Gathering Strength.

I believe the recent budget's commitment to provide ongoing funding for Gathering Strength is both a strong endorsement of the direction we've taken and a clear recognition of the progress we've made across this country.

Today, I would like to share with you some examples of that progress.

Mr. Chairman, as you well know, Gathering Strength is a bridge to self-sufficiency, to a better future. It leads from our troubled past to a promising tomorrow. We can describe the destination: a Canada where aboriginal people enjoy the same quality of life as anyone else—where they have strong, self-sufficient, self-reliant, healthy communities. Where they can contribute to the economic growth and prosperity of this land that we share.

We will not cross this bridge quickly. Building it takes work, and the structure is still taking shape. But we see progress, Mr. Chairman.

In cooperation with the Assembly of First Nations, we have developed the framework for that bridge and its four pillars—renewing the partnership, strengthening aboriginal governance, developing a new fiscal relationship and supporting strong communities, people and economies.

Let me describe some of our progress in each area.

Renewing our partnership with aboriginal people began with a Statement of Reconciliation which recognized the historic contributions of aboriginal people and expressed profound regret for the government's past mistakes. In particular, the government acknowledged its role in the administration of residential schools and their tragic impact.

The establishment of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation will contribute to the process of reconciliation. Operating independently, it is addressing the legacy of residential schools by providing funds to support community healing and healing-centre programs. To address the cycle of abuse begun by the residential school experience. To enhance aboriginal capacity, through training. It also provides funds to create an historical record of the residential school experience. By sharing this history with future generations, we can prevent it from being repeated.

Other aspects of improved partnership involve other governments. We see progress there as well. Almost one year ago, aboriginal leaders met representatives of federal, provincial and territorial governments. This meeting of the leaders and ministers responsible for aboriginal affairs was the first of its kind in over four years. It helped us move beyond jurisdictional issues to find better ways to work together and achieve practical results.

The second component of Gathering Strength involves strengthening aboriginal governance. Good governance is about creating responsible governments that can meet the needs of their citizens and develop appropriate solutions for the challenges faced by their communities. It is about placing control in local hands, so that programs and policies meet the needs of the community.

On the issue of self-government, I am pleased to report that more than 80 such agreements are currently being negotiated across the country.

I am also pleased to report on successes in the East and West. Just yesterday, the negotiators for Canada, the Labrador Inuit Association and Newfoundland initialled an agreement-in-principle to settle the Inuit land claim and establish Inuit self-government.

Just last week, we signed a final agreement with the Nisga'a Tribal Council, settling a century-old claim and paving the way for self-government and economic development in northwestern British Columbia. I am confident in saying that this is a fair and honourable agreement that balances the interests of all Canadians.

It was a special honour for me to sign that agreement. Given its importance, we want to allow adequate time for a full debate in Parliament. Regrettably, the timing of provincial ratification and our parliamentary schedule does not allow us to introduce and pass legislation before the summer recess.

But make no mistake: our commitment to the Nisga'a Final Agreement is unwavering and our determination to proceed with this historic treaty is unshakeable. When the House resumes sitting in the fall, we will introduce legislation to approve and implement this treaty, and to ensure that the Nisga'a people will take their rightful place in Canadian society at last.

There have been other developments in the area of good governance, as well. We have legislation before the Senate that would enable 14 first nations from across Canada to establish their own lands and resources management regimes. The First Nations Land Management Act would ratify a groundbreaking framework agreement, opening up major economic development possibilities for these first nations as they control their lands.

And over the past year, more than 1,500 first nation administrators received training in land, resource and environmental management.

Over the past year, we have also seen great progress in the third component of Gathering Strength—the development of a new fiscal relationship with aboriginal people.

Our goal has been to design new fiscal arrangements, streamline the funding process, develop financial skills in first nations and foster stronger accountability. In each of these areas, significant steps have been taken.

Nationally, the AFN and the Certified General Accountants' Association of Canada have assigned a memorandum of understanding to strengthen the financial management capacity and enhance the financial reporting standards of first nations.

In the West, we have established a tripartite fiscal relations table, involving the federal government, the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and the Government of Saskatchewan, to discuss fundamental issues, such as fiscal arrangements and accountability. These discussions will lead to a new government-to-government fiscal relationship, in support of first nations self-government in Saskatchewan.

In the North, a new taxation regime was introduced in January for aboriginal people living in the Yukon, and tax collection agreements for the seven self-governing first nations were implemented.

It is important to discuss this progress, Mr. Chairman, because too often the accountability story is told without balance. Let me address the issue of accountability directly, Mr. Chairman, because I know that it continues to be a matter of some concern to members of this committee, indeed as it is to me and to all Canadians.

Let me be clear: becoming more accountable is not a matter of choice for first nations. It is not just something that should be done, it is something that must be done—and is being done. First nations themselves are demanding it, progress on self-government requires it, and Canadians expect it.

There can be no doubt that public support for our larger goals will be difficult to maintain if there is any question about financial mismanagement. And I can say, without hesitation, that first nations understand that—both the chiefs and the communities they represent.

Our approach has been to work with first nations, to strengthen their capacity to exercise the new responsibilities they have assumed. It is a slower process than some may want, but it is the only process that will produce solid, long-term results. We cannot simply assign responsibility and run. We know that will not work.

Our approach produces better results because it helps first nations to set the pace at which their communities move forward. The work between the AFN and the CGA that I mentioned a moment ago is typical of a new determination within first nations communities to improve their own accounting and auditing knowledge, skill and capacity.

It is a movement rooted in a clear-eyed evaluation of present needs and a concrete expression of future intentions.

Many first nations are developing partnerships with prominent management consulting and informatics firms to develop business and information models that are appropriate to their communities.

In British Columbia, an Aboriginal Financial Officers Association has been established and first nations in other regions are considering creating similar bodies.

In Saskatchewan, aboriginal business students are gaining first-hand accounting experience through a mentoring program with the provincial Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Recently the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations hosted a successful conference that brought together first nations, governments and interested parties to discuss ways to strengthen accountability.

And the Chiefs of Alberta have established a committee that is addressing key accountability issues.

Last month the Auditor General attended the accountability and governance conference organized by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. I read with interest his remark that the conference was—and I am quoting now—“a good example for others to follow and will serve as a launching pad for further developments in Aboriginal governance.” Exactly right, Mr. Chairman. Aboriginal people wish to manage their own affairs and to manage them professionally.

Recently the Auditor General produced a report discussing my department's initiatives on financial issues. I was encouraged to see that he recognized that improvements have been made, in addition to identifying areas for further work. I appreciate the Auditor General's role in our system, and am glad to see that he recognizes the challenges and opportunities facing first nations.

Let me just say, with respect to the Auditor General's follow-up report on funding arrangements, that we have listened very carefully to what he had to say.

In response to concerns raised over how allegations of financial mismanagement are handled by my department, I have requested my department to complete a review of this issue within 90 days. It will clarify our responsibilities, assess risks, set priorities and identify further improvements to our current processes.

I am also reviewing the suggestion that a national reporting system for allegations be established—one which would track the nature and frequency of allegations.

But I think it is only fair to point out that it is this government's commitment to more rigorous enforcement of accountability which has brought many of these issues to the fore.

For example, since 1995, first nations have been required to prepare their audits in accordance with the Public Sector Accounting and Auditing Standards of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, as would any government. DIAND's funding arrangements demand that the results of these audits be shared both with members of the community and with the federal government. In fact, DIAND monitors the receipt of all first nation audits. Since 1997, we have required chiefs and councils to disclose salaries, honoraria and travel expenses—information that community members are now using to ensure their governments are in fact working in the interests of the community they represent.

Let me turn to the issue of managing allegations. This issue is unquestionably important. But it cannot be the single lens through which we view accountability. We should focus on the goal of ensuring that the responsibility of accountability rests at the level of each first nation. We are starting to see progress there. This move toward self-sufficiency and responsibility is being understood. Individual members of first nations are starting to speak up and to hold their chiefs and councils accountable. This is an encouraging sign, and I think we will see more of it.

Remember that this is a time of transition. We have moved beyond the idea of dumping programs and responsibilities on first nations and, in effect, abandoning them to struggle forward by themselves. Now we are working in partnership, moving towards stronger accountability, and wiser management of resources.

Along the way, we must continue to insist on high standards. We must continue to take corrective action where necessary. And we must continue to encourage the development of capacity which will make problems less likely in the future.

The fourth and final component of Gathering Strength is supporting strong communities, people and economies. These initiatives are aimed at building the physical and social infrastructure which will lead to stronger communities, a skilled workforce and increased aboriginal participation in economic opportunities in and around aboriginal communities.

Today, over 145 communities are participating in 37 welfare demonstration projects that focus on increasing the capacity of first nations to develop and administer social programs. Our goal is to break the cycle of dependency and promote self-sufficiency.

We are also working hard to improve the quality of education for first nations and to increase school completion rates.

Addressing water and sewer and housing conditions on reserves continues to be a priority. Gathering Strength funding is allowing us to accelerate improvements. Last year 63 communities benefited from improved water and sewer services, and 64 new community-based housing plans were approved under the new housing policy, bringing the total to 236 first nations. Furthermore, we launched the Innovative Housing Fund, which funded more than 24 first nations projects to explore new techniques and technologies.

Over the past year, a number of partnerships have emerged. In British Columbia, for example, the Ministry of Education, first nations and DIAND are working together on special needs education and education governance systems.

As well, important new partnerships are forming between industry, private sector and aboriginal governments. I think of examples such as the Business at the Summit in British Columbia, the Ontario Economic Renewal Forum, the Corporate Circle in Saskatchewan and the Joint Economic Development Initiative in New Brunswick.

We are working through collaborative partnerships on a variety of fronts, to improve access to economic opportunities and access to capital, markets, labour force experience and lands and resources. The Aboriginal Business Development Initiative recently announced by Minister Manley is a good example of these partnerships. It brings together Industry Canada, the regional agencies, DIAND and the aboriginal developmental lending institutions to strengthen community and business access to developmental capital. Similarly, we are working with the Canadian Bankers Association and major commercial lenders to increase business lending on reserves.

Mr. Chairman, each of these examples I have mentioned helps strengthen the bridge we are building—the bridge to self-sufficiency. As this bridge takes shape, we see clearly where it leads—to a future that will be better and brighter and fairer for all our citizens.

Gathering Strength has set us down the right road. Let us not become distracted by difficulties, but press on and finish the journey that has been so well begun.

Aboriginal people demand no more. They deserve no less.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Please proceed, Minister.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: It's been a year since I was with you last on estimates. We've had quite an extraordinary year, implementing Gathering Strength.

Over the course of the timeframe, I think we've made some tremendous strides in focusing on transitioning the relationship between the federal government and aboriginal people in Canada, trying to move away, really, from the relationship of dependency, the very focused relationship between the federal government and first nations and the Inuit, to broadening the partnership and recognizing that if we are significantly going to change the living standards of aboriginal people in Canada, we need far more people at the table than just the federal government and first nations or Inuit people.

Having said that, you can see in our planning and priorities document some of the successes we've had over the course of the last year. I'd be glad to respond to those in the context of questions. There are four areas, though, I'd like to touch on briefly before I take your questions—the issue of treaty-making; the concept of self-government; the issue of accountability in first nations; and aspects of changing the quality of life for aboriginal people in Canada.

When we talk about writing treaties, I think it's clear that this tool is as important to us today as it has been in our history. You're aware that we are at the table in British Columbia, with the province there, writing modern treaties.

In the Yukon, Ms. Hardy, we are continuing to complete the work there with the 14 first nations in settling land claims and self-government agreements.

We've just had the great celebration, Ms. Karetak-Lindell, in Nunavut, which is the outcome of the settling of the comprehensive claim as well as a reflection of the issues of Inuit governance in the context of public government.

You may be aware that yesterday we signed an agreement in principle with the Labrador Inuit. That's the last Inuit group we will be working with in the area of settling claims.

So treaties are essentially important to us as we continue to take very seriously the protection of aboriginal rights in Canada, as stated in section 35 of the Constitution, and to make them real.

As you know, the Constitution doesn't define the individual rights of first nations and aboriginal people. It broadly protects them, and then says to us, okay, you go and work with first nations, nation by nation, and with the Inuit to establish and define in the treaty what their exhaustive rights are, and then find ways and means to reflect those in a modern Canada.

For us, the importance of writing treaties is there because it gives us certainty—certainty over lands, certainty over jurisdictions and authorities. It is a priority to complete the task that began so many years ago in Canada.

I would point out that in the very near future, I'll be travelling to the Treaty 8 area to celebrate the 100th anniversary of that treaty.

• 0915

Again, it's important to understand that treaties are not new in Canada. It's the tool of choice in terms of building common and solid relationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in Canada, and we have to complete the job.

In that regard, one of the aspects of aboriginal rights that has become vitally important for us is the issue and the right of self-government. Maybe that language, “self-government”, isn't the most correct. It has become full of challenges. I think perhaps we need to understand it more in a context rising out of the constitution of community or local government, finding a better way to work together with first nations and Inuit people in the context of a relationship that we really do understand.

Clearly the relationship espoused in the Indian Act, where the Minister of Indian Affairs has authorities that are really quite extraordinary—and you're all familiar with those—right down to being responsible for the final wills and testaments of individual aboriginal people, is a relationship we have to change. If we are going to change the dependent relationship that has grown up between us over the course of time for a number of reasons, we have to find a new approach. Quite frankly, I believe that approach is in local community governments.

I think all Canadians believe decisions that are very much part of their day-to-day lives are best made locally. These are issues we're discussing in the Yukon, for example, with the territorial government and with first nations there.

Fundamentally, what we're also discussing as we write self-government agreements with first nations is that it's not something to be afraid of. Rather, as we set out the rights of the first nations in particular in a treaty and then find ways to reconcile them, we are also looking at modern ways of making sure we have a strong, definable, clear relationship in terms of governance. From my point of view, that includes self-government.

Particularly, I think we will find it supportive in helping us with another issue, the issue of accountability. It's been a challenge, certainly. Colleagues in the opposition have focused on the issue of first nations accountability.

To my mind, the solution in the long term is one we will find in the context of local governance, where the responsibility and the accountability rests in the communities, where the community members understand who has what authorities and what responsibilities, and can demand of duly elected chiefs and council that accountability.

Right now we're in transition. There is a lack of clarity over who has which final authorities. There's this idea that the Minister of Indian Affairs is still the one who is supposed to make everybody accountable. Well, that is the approach of the past. I don't think we are going to improve governance accountability if we don't get clarity on where responsibility really should and must lie.

I think it's been the discussions we've been having around self-government that have really spawned the energy behind local discussions, community by community, in the area of self-government.

What I want to be clear about here is that there is no policy in my department that this is going to say, okay, by such-and-such date every first nation is going to be self-governing. Rather, we want to look at the capacities and the abilities of each first nation to assess where their capabilities lie and to move in that direction according to their needs and their capacity to move.

So the idea that it's going to be blanketed across first nations is not the approach we're taking.

As we hear community groups, Ms. Freed and others, talking about the need for accountability, this is all part and parcel of the transition, of the recognition that more and more decisions are being made locally, and that the accountability must be held locally. We need to support that in a positive fashion.

So in my view, we are in a position of transition. I think we have to work positively together and in partnership to move that transition as effectively as possible.

I would say a few words on the issue of quality of life, which fundamentally is our biggest challenge. How do we make sure we are restoring the balance and that the opportunities that exist for us, as Canadians, exist equally for aboriginal people in this country? That's where, in Gathering Strength, we have a real focus—targeting education and making investments to improve the curriculum, to improve the capacity of those teaching in first nations, to encourage the stay-in-school programs, and that type of thing.

That's where we are working with first nations to look at the welfare structures and to break that dependency model. We have pilots going in 137 first nations across the country, where we are developing active measures.

• 0920

So it isn't just income support we are undertaking. We are also supporting families who need the support of resources to put food on the table and encouraging training and employment. We are working with first nations in that regard to change the old model of dependency. We're looking at housing, and are making new...for housing.

Fundamentally, though, it again gets down to the relationship, to how we provide funding while looking at new ways of steering federal transfers into first nations so that they can be used more effectively.

Rather than tunnelling it—this much for housing, this much for this project, this much here, and don't mix it up—we're trying to find new and modern ways of providing fiscal transfers so that chiefs and council have the capacity to make decisions and to use their financing effectively.

We see some great successes, Mr. Keddy, in your area. For example, in Wagmatcook, there's been an almost overnight transformation in that community as a result of using new and modern fiscal transfers.

At any rate, those are just some opening comments. I'd like to leave it to your questions now.

I feel we really are in an extremely significant change mode, not only in the department but also in our relationship with first nations and Inuit people. I believe it's a positive path we're following, one that will lead to self-reliance, considerably more self-reliance, in all our first nations and Inuit communities across Canada.

The Chairman: Merci, Madam Stewart.

Monsieur Konrad.

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

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Is that for questions and answers both?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'll make my questions short if you make your answers short, Minister, because I would like to get a couple in. Thank you.

Recently, in answer to a question raised in Question Period, you stated that you had appointed allegations coordinators to look into allegations of wrongdoing on reserves.

A week or two ago, a conference on accountability was held in Saskatchewan, where Judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond characterized the work of allegations coordinators as “busywork”. When I'm done asking my questions, I'd like you to at least comment on her characterization.

Personally, I don't know the job of an allegations coordinator. I don't know where I could find one in Saskatchewan. I don't know if they have a budget or what size it is. I don't know if the coordinator has an independent office or if they work through a band office. I don't know whether there's one or a dozen or who they report to. Are their reports going to be studied by you or by this committee, or is there an independent committee to review those?

Judge Turpel-Lafond indicated it would be more acceptable to call the police if there were allegations of wrongdoing, as was done with the provincial Conservative Party in Saskatchewan.

On that same line about the allegations coordinators, there was a newspaper report stating that approximately $1.65 million of treaty land entitlement money was spent from the Saulteaux First Nation in Saskatchewan without any land having been purchased.

My understanding is that funds kept in a trust account are only to be used for the purchase of land. Since the government has the fiduciary responsibility, and you're the minister, I'd like to ask you, did this go to the RCMP or did it go to allegations coordinators? Is the money to be replaced? If it is to be replaced, is it to be replaced by the taxpayer or the Indians who are meant to be the beneficiaries? Are they the losers in this scenario? Is there going to be somebody sued in an attempt to recover the money?

Would you answer those questions, please? Thank you.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Konrad. You've raised a number of issues in your commentary there.

First and foremost, there are a couple of points I'd like to make. Like all Canadians, I'm outraged whenever there are findings of deliberate wrongdoing and misappropriation. It's unacceptable, and it has to be dealt with.

Equally, however, I'm outraged when we broad-brush first nations on the issue of accountability and assume that all are the same. I think the whole table would accept that as probably a right sense of balance here.

• 0925

Having said that, there's no question that the issue of accountability is real for all governments, and that includes first nations. They are truly stepping up to the plate to appreciate that. You'll see that in the context of Gathering Strength.

With regard to Justice Turpel-Lafond's comments, those are her comments, made publicly at an accountability symposium, which in itself, I think, is an indication that first nations are taking this seriously.

The argument she makes, that many chiefs make, is that you have to understand, from our point of view, that we have responsibilities to provide services that cut across all levels of government, that others would receive from municipal, provincial and federal governments. It's a big challenge for us. We're also starting from a position that isn't at the same starting point. Part of our challenge in terms of servicing our communities is fundamentally the amount of money.

Those were the arguments I think Justice Turpel-Lafond was making.

In the context of allegations and how we deal with issues of wrongdoing, as you point out there are different kinds of allegations that can be received. They may be allegations of wrongdoing. In that case, if they are issues of fraud and wrongdoing, they are sent to the RCMP, and the RCMP has their process for dealing with them.

If they are issues of, for example, election dispute, those come to the allegations coordinator and then to the appropriate lands and trusts services section of my department to reflect upon and to determine if there was, in fact, an inappropriate undertaking and then a set-aside.

There may be allegations of use of program dollars and moneys. We hear from time to time about individuals who say they didn't get moneys.

So those can be allegations that are presented to us.

A system we've put in place is that in every regional office, there is an allegations officer who receives that information and makes decisions on who best to respond to them—the RCMP or lands and trusts or the appropriate programs and services or, in fact, back to the first nation to look at how they are spending money.

That process is new in the department as of the last year. We are seeing some results from it.

In the Auditor General's report, he suggested that we didn't have requirements as to how to deal with allegations, but again, because of the different types of allegations that come forward, I don't feel it's appropriate that we're going to find one set of strategies that will be usefully applied across all allegations. Rather, what I want to make sure of is that those allegations coordinators have the capacity, the understanding, and the training to know what to do with the information they receive.

Specifically, you refer to the Saulteaux First Nation. In fact, I think if we look at what's happening in Saulteaux, we see that the community itself has recently looked at what is happening and what was occurring with the chief and council. They came together and decided this wasn't appropriate. They basically turned their chief out, had a new election, and have a new council.

I think what we can say from that experience is that the system is working, and that this transition I'm talking about is effectively taking hold. First nations are appreciating that the responsibility and accountability rests with them locally and that they can take action.

I think that's in fact what we're seeing at Saulteaux.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Just another short one?

The Chairman: Very short.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I also asked, as a final question, whether that money is meant to be replaced, and whether the Indians who are meant to be the beneficiaries are going to lose.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I'm not prepared to talk about the individual case at this point, but broadly speaking, if there are allegations of wrongdoing and fraud, and the RCMP come in and do an investigation, then out of their investigation the appropriate parties will have to take some action.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Stewart.

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): I have two questions. The first has to do with your fiduciary role towards Aboriginal peoples.

At present, some Aboriginal peoples live on-reserve, while others live off-reserve. Approximately 40% no longer live on the reserves, and the government has adopted a rather special attitude towards them. The government says, “As soon as you set foot off the reserve, we wash our hands of what may happen after.” In the final analysis, the provinces are the ones that have to take over. I find that you are giving rather short shrift to the fiduciary role of the Department of Indian Affairs. Some people have even told me that there was a plot; pardon the expression.

• 0930

For example, I myself have seen that there is a housing problem on many reserves. The units are overcrowded. When you have 10 people living in a one-bedroom unit, life is not easy, and often the only solution is to leave the reserve. When you leave the reserve, it just so happens that the government says, “Well, you're no longer my responsibility; let the provinces take care of you.”

How do you intend to correct this situation? I do hope that you are going to correct it, because Phil Fontaine of the AFN is starting to realize that he is responsible not only for those living on-reserve, but also for people living off-reserve. In my opinion, you are intentionally giving short shrift to your fiduciary role, and according to some people, probably for financial reasons. That's my first question.

My second question has to do with the northern islands. I think I heard yesterday that the Inuit living in Labrador had finally negotiated an agreement on all the territory along the coast, that is to say, the part in the ocean and the islands over by the Inuit living in Labrador. I'm told that the Inuit living in Nunavik are also on their way to an agreement, but some people are extremely concerned. I asked you a question about this the other day, and I'd like to take this opportunity to return to it. There are Crees in Quebec, Crees in Ontario and probably Dene in western Canada also who are concerned, among other things, about certain islands that they are claiming. As for the Quebec Cree, you said that you had left the table because a lawsuit had been filed against the government. And yet, the Delgamuukw decision clearly says that the government does not have to withdraw when a lawsuit has been filed against it; the government can continue to negotiate. The decision even recommends that the government continue negotiating. I would like to know whether you intend to return to the bargaining table. I am speaking primarily for the Cree, because I'm told that the Inuit of Nunavik are fine with this. As for the Cree, do you intend to return to the bargaining table with the Government of Quebec so as to set the boundaries of Nunavut once and for all so that all the nations that are bound by extra-territorial claims can come to a satisfactory agreement with you?

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

[English]

Those are two very good questions. The first one gets to the heart of the relationship between jurisdictions, federal and provincial.

I can say to you that at this point in time, from the federal government's point of view, we view our responsibility this way: We have primary—not exclusive, but primary—responsibility for aboriginal people living on reserves, and we view the provinces as having primary responsibility for aboriginal people living off reserve, as any other citizens in their provinces.

You're all familiar with the fact that the aboriginal population is growing fast in size, at double the rate of the non-aboriginal population, both on and off reserve. I think the issues of servicing aboriginal people are becoming modern-day issues.

I can tell you that a year ago February, when I met with my provincial counterparts and the aboriginal leadership in Quebec City, we talked specifically about the issue of jurisdiction and the fact that, as a result of our response to the royal commission and Gathering Strength, and this notion of broadening the partnership, it's incumbent on us as governments to do our best to set aside the issues of jurisdiction and try to get down to satisfying the real challenges faced by aboriginal people both on and off reserve.

We had a very lively debate on the issue of fiduciary responsibility. Quite frankly, to my mind, the concept is the following. When we talk about the original treaties written between first nations and the crown, that was the direct relationship. Over the course of time, the crown, of course, has changed. Canada has repatriated its constitution and we have provided jurisdictions to the provinces that they didn't have before. So the crown exists in several parts, and there therefore is a responsibility for the crown in its entirety to take responsibility for aboriginal people.

It's my view that when we sit down at the table, we can probably deal with 80% of the issues that aboriginal people face both on and off reserve if we do it in the context of partnership as opposed to getting stuck in the issue of jurisdiction. We are starting to see some of that coming to the fore.

• 0935

In New Brunswick, for example, on the issues over timber, the province is there, and supporting a resolution. In Saskatchewan, we're there at the table with the province, talking about own-source revenues, revenue sharing, and new fiscal relationships.

So that is starting to change. The question's a very good one, a very timely one, and I think we're in the process of understanding the importance of jurisdictions in that regard.

In terms of your second question, with regard to both Nunavik and the Cree offshore lands, when it comes to the Inuit in Nunavik we're absolutely prepared to be at the table to sit and talk to them about self-government agreements. I know Premier Bouchard was in the territory over a year ago now, or a year ago in July, and also indicated support for such a table. We're waiting for the province to come to the table in that regard.

With respect to the Cree, as I pointed out, they have a view that they have aboriginal rights in certain of the islands that are part of the Nunavut Territory. In the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, as in all comprehensive claims, there is language that speaks to the non-derogation and the non-abrogation of aboriginal rights that may be found to exist subsequent to the signing of the agreement. That non-derogation clause applies to the Cree.

In February, the Cree took us to court. With respect to that, it changes the whole dynamic in terms of negotiation. As I mentioned in the House, the Department of Justice had a meeting with the Cree to try to assess what was in that court case to see if there was an opportunity for us to continue to negotiate resolution or if in fact we're stymied at the negotiating table because of the court case. That's where we're at now.

In my view, I remain committed to the belief that it's far better to negotiate a resolution than to litigate it. I'm hopeful that in this regard we'll be able to make progress.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, madam. Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

Ms. Hardy, followed by Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): I have a few questions. I'll just list them for you.

I have a few concerns around negotiations. Negotiations go on sometimes for decades before it comes to Parliament. We come in at the end of it. If we have any serious concerns, we know it could be setting negotiations back 10 years—for example, on Bill C-56, which is supported by my party.

The department's interpretation varied totally from witnesses who came before us on voting irregularities—i.e., money tied to payments, changes in majority, and lack of pre-ballots. I think the department has to be seen to be above any suspicion completely, but particularly on areas like this. If you want to continue supporting a process that's helpful to first nations, I don't think saying we have to start over is acceptable to anybody involved.

That whole process really bothers me, as does the fact that more and more first nations are going to the United Nations. The United Nations said that Canada was involved in an extrajudicial killing when it came to Dudley George, and that we should have an independent inquiry into that.

I'd like to know what your department is doing in terms of applying the Indian Act in Newfoundland and Labrador to the Mi'kmaq people.

As well, I don't know if you know, but a native spirituality guide used to be published so that when first nations elders were taking spiritual or religious paraphernalia across the border, they would be treated with respect. That's no longer published. It has been a real issue in the Yukon, because we're right now having a circumpolar art show. It was a real nightmare for a lot of people who were bringing their artifacts to the Yukon.

I'd like to know what your opinion is, or why on earth the Indian Act isn't subject to our human rights act.

As well, I'm wondering if you're going to take seriously the recommendations the committee just put out here, particularly for Nav Canada in the north and the real expense and difficulty of getting anything up to the north, particularly with these changes.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Very good. I've documented six questions. I'll start with the last one.

Thank you, Ms. Hardy, for reminding me that the report has been tabled, and thank you very much to the committee for the work you've undertaken. I must confess, I haven't yet read it, but I've been through the six recommendations very briefly. I see that three of them focus on NavCan and the issue of food mail.

I recognize how significant this is for the north. In fact, I've been working with the department to try to find ways and means of making sure that changes as a result of NavCan have not been, at least immediately, influencing the price of food in the north.

• 0940

This will continue to be an issue for us, however. I'll look to the recommendations for some direction here, but again, it's highly likely that I'm going to have to engage the territories and the provinces in the northern half to assist us in the longer term with ensuring that Canadians who live in the north have access to the foodstuffs they need for a healthy life. I thank the committee for the work on economic development here.

If I go back to the first question on negotiations, recognizing how indeed they can be long term, and how we can better provide opportunities for broader involvement, it's a very good point. I think what we've been learning over the course of time, particularly as we write comprehensive agreements, is that there are ways and means of engaging the broader public in what's happening. There's no question that the negotiations themselves must occur between the parties, whether it be the federal government and the first nation, or the federal government and the province and the first nation or territory. That's where the negotiations....

We can't have the world negotiating agreements. However, we can do a far better job at keeping the public and the interested parties abreast of where we're at and what is occurring. I can give you a number of examples of how that's changing, but it is changing, and it's a real priority for me so that Canadians do understand why we're doing what we're doing, what are the potential implications of what we're doing, and how they can be part of the broader discussion.

With regard to the United Nations, I'd like to recognize my colleague, Mrs. Barnes, and the work she and the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women undertook at the United Nations on behalf of the federal government, presenting really all the information of the federal government to the United Nations and facing, I think, six or eight hours of challenge.

You're right that the issue of Dudley George's death was presented. From our point of view, this is an issue....

The death occurred in a provincial park, under the auspices of the provincial police association. That provincial policing arm is subject to the authority of the provincial government. The effective place for a review of that occurrence to be undertaken is at the provincial level. That's where the powers of subpoena exist. That's where the powers of authority exist.

Having said that, I've made it absolutely clear—and I've written this to the Attorney General in Ontario—that clearly there are citizens of the province of Ontario who have questions outstanding. It's my view that those questions need to be responded to. I'm hopeful that there will be an opportunity for the interested parties to have their questions answered.

With regard to the Mi'kmaq in Atlantic Canada, there are a number of important undertakings happening there, not the least of which was an act of our Parliament, the Mi'kmaq Education Act, which speaks directly to the jurisdictional authority of Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia. The province itself will also pass a piece of legislation, and the Mi'kmaq people will have the authority to provide education to their communities and also have the opportunity to share the curriculum they develop about Mi'kmaq language, history, and culture with the broader public.

This is an example of precisely the progress we're making, particularly in Atlantic Canada. In the context of the notion of self-government in other parts of Atlantic Canada, we're making progress. The Atlantic policy council of chiefs has come together quite effectively. We're working with them on issues of land claims as well as broader issues.

I was not aware of the fourth issue you raised with regard to the publication of the native spirituality guide. I thank you for recognizing that. I didn't realize it was an issue. I'll go back and see if there's something we can do to ensure there's not a difficulty placed on our international visitors.

On the Indian Act and the human rights act, I can tell you absolutely, I'm a firm believer that we're coming to a point in our relationship with aboriginal people where we are going to be able to make significant changes to the relationship as defined by the Indian Act. I'm not sure if it's going to happen through amendments to the act or if it's going to happen because we're going to be more successful at the 80 tables we now have under way focused on self-government—self-government in areas where we already have treaties, and building self-government agreements as we're writing treaties.

To me, fundamentally, the Indian Act is outdated. It's antiquated. I don't like being the minister responsible for all the things that are part and parcel of that, because I do find it disrespectful in this day and age.

• 0945

Quite frankly, as a result, I think, of Gathering Strength, there's an appreciation of the fact that we are not prepared to assimilate aboriginal people any more. On the idea of having to cling to that act, despite what it does to their circumstances, the pressure is starting to be relieved. We're starting to find different opportunities, not the least of which is Bill C-49 and other self-government agreements that will help us deal with that more effectively.

I mentioned the sixth one with regard to NavCan.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Stewart. Thank you, Ms. Hardy.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

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

Like everyone else, I'd like to thank the minister for appearing at the committee today. It's a pleasure to see you here, and I hope you can hurry back.

I have several questions, including a couple of specific ones, although I realize that time is short here.

To enlarge a little bit on the issue of the eastern Canadian Mi'kmaq, specifically the Federation of Newfoundland Indians, have you entered into any negotiations with the Newfoundland Mi'kmaq? Jerry Wetzel represents them, and there are two other chiefs I've spoken to. They want to pursue some type of long-term negotiated settlement that will recognize Mi'kmaq First Nation in Newfoundland. They don't feel they have that recognition now. They are certainly prepared to have an agreement that, at the end of the day, would make them more included in the larger Canadian fabric of society.

The second question is specifically dealing with your position on fiduciary responsibility. I think most of us at this committee, and many people, put that issue aside long ago. It's one I've been wrestling with for a period of time, and I'm not satisfied with any of the answers I've come up with on fiduciary responsibility.

Do you see your position or your role as minister as solely having fiduciary responsibility to first nations or as also having fiduciary responsibility to non-first nations? There's a greater role there.

The other issue is that you had mentioned amendments to the Indian Act. Do you believe we can amend the Indian Act? What information has your legal counsel provided you with?

Finally, on responsibility and accountability, you were talking about an allegations coordinator. Has there been an allegations coordinator appointed for the Tobique-Mactaquac band—or I guess the proper name for that band is Tobique—and the Lubicon band?

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

With regard to issues of the Mi'kmaq in Newfoundland—and I'm sorry, Ms. Hardy—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Specifically Newfoundland, yes.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes.

In fact, we are undertaking, through my regional director general, Bill Montour, discussions with Newfoundland first nations to look at the report of the human rights commission that focused on this issue, to sit down and to try see, in the context of the relationship that exists now with Newfoundland, which is quite unique in Canada, as you know, if there are ways of better satisfying their need to feel included as aboriginal people or first nations in Canada.

The work is still at its early stages, but I can confirm to you that indeed we are taking action, and we're doing it through the regional director general directly, and having conversations locally with Newfoundland first nations in that regard.

On the fiduciary issue, in fact, if I recall, the conversation we had the last time I was here was on the relationship between being the minister legally responsible for the fiduciary with aboriginal people on reserve and Inuit in the context of our history through the proclamation and through the constitution, but also balancing that in the broader context of Canada.

• 0950

I think we're doing that quite well. Certainly one of the issues I face from time to time is that when there are judgments in the court, and the decision is to appeal, we take that decision based on the broad responsibility we have for Canada and its legal system.

I think what we're doing in improving our relationship with first nations in that regard is at least explaining to them in better detail why the appeals are being made. So there's a broader understanding that it is not in conflict with our fiduciary but it brings us together in the context of the responsibility we have for the whole country. But it is a challenging one.

In terms of amendments to the Indian Act, what I'd say to that, I guess, is that there won't be amendments unless we design them together with first nations. I can tell you point-blank that I am not going to introduce amendments unilaterally. It's a go-nowhere strategy, as far as I'm concerned. We tried that once and it didn't work.

As we find the levels of trust being improved between us, there's an appreciation, as I say, that it isn't so much the Indian Act that needs to be grabbed onto for first nations to continue to protect their rights; rather, we're understanding it at the more appropriate level, the level of the treaty, the first relationship. If we can have that understanding, there's going to be an opportunity for us to find new strategies to better manage our relationship, not the least of which includes self-government.

In terms of allegations with regard to the Tobique first nation, in fact there is an allegations coordinator in Atlantic Canada, but our department officials have been working directly with that first nation to deal with some of the recent challenges as well as the longer-term issue of fiscal health.

With the Lubicon, as I mentioned in the House, I've been receiving from a number of you, as well as from individual Canadians, an urging to settle that outstanding obligation, that land claim. It is a specific claim under Treaty 8, and it has been accepted as that. We are at the negotiating table now. Negotiations are proceeding very well.

I'm hopeful, again, that we're going to be able to find a resolution to this long-outstanding challenge to allow for the Cree of northern Alberta, known as the Lubicon now, to achieve their treaty rights that have not been resolved.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Stewart.

Mrs. Barnes.

[English]

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses today.

Minister, I'm going to follow up on Mr. Keddy's question, because I want to make sure we're very clear here. I think it came across in the discussions we had last week and some of our specific discussions regarding leasing situations.

To me, and I think in law, there's a difference between your position as a minister vis-à-vis all Canadians—and there are certain responsibilities you might expand on there, and where that authority comes from—and fiduciary responsibilities in a unique system, such as surrender of a lease.

In a context to perhaps explain this a little further, in some situations you have only one master, in a sense—the fiduciary responsibility. In another broader context, it is much wider. I think that was really what you were getting at. Because the contextual framework wasn't set, I don't think the answer was as clear as it could have been. I think there is a variance of relationships here.

So perhaps you could just spend a minute to make sure we don't have any confusion.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Let's understand that as a result of.... Again, we can go back through the history of the Proclamation of 1763 and subsequent documentation, not the least of which brings us to the Constitution and the appreciation of rights, but over the course of time there's been a recognition that there would be the possibility that first nations could be subject to, for lack of a better word, “abuse” at the hands of others.

That's why, for example, in the proclamation it was clear that any kind of surrender of lands made of first nations property had to be made to the crown. The crown was there to protect first nations against abuse that potentially could occur with the clash of cultures.

In that regard, it is the fiduciary responsibility of the crown, vested in the Minister of Indian Affairs, to ensure that this does not happen. Over the course of time, this is how we get our specific claims.

• 0955

The treaties were written. The agreements were set out. Over the course of time—as my deputy keeps reminding me—not only did first nations surrender huge tracts of land; we also then even compressed that into reserve lands. About two-thirds of the land they achieved through chief treaties is now not theirs, and significant numbers of land transactions have occurred as that land has gone to other parties.

As a result of that, and maybe not unexpectedly, there has now been recognition that certain transactions may not have been appropriately undertaken. Moneys were not conveyed to the first nations. Acceptable amounts were not taken in return for the surrender. A surrender was never legally undertaken because the community was involved in a number of things. That leaves me liable as the fiduciary, because I have the responsibility to ensure that those things were transacted appropriately.

In modern leasing agreements, we find the same thing is true. I have the responsibility to ensure that first nations are not abused in these undertakings. More and more, however, we see that it's appropriate that the authority vested in the Minister of Indian Affairs can be delegated to the first nations. I'm acting on their behalf, so there's nothing to say that they can't act on their own behalf with the protection of the Indian Act. That's what's happening here.

In the case, for example, of a particular lease where decisions are made, particularly by the courts, as to what is appropriate, it's virtually impossible for me to suggest anything alternate to that, because I have an obligation to protect the interests of the first nation. If I go in and say, “Well, it's too bad; I don't care what the courts have said, because I think this is the right thing”, then I'm creating a whole other liability, which is not dissimilar to those that have been created over the course of time as treaty lands were conveyed.

So it's something I have to be extremely watchful of, and I think the Canadian citizenry needs to understand the context of the decisions that were made long before I ever came around in terms of the relationship with first nations.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Thank you.

Now we'll go to my own questioning, which has to deal with children. We've seen the preponderance of the youthful population, and yet we know historically that only about 37% of this population is going to complete secondary school.

I've seen that there are slight increases in budgets in terms of primary, secondary, and post-secondary. How can the department, how can the Canadian public, and how can the first nations themselves support the encouragement of staying in school as another means of being part of the solution?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: This is extremely important to us. Just by way of statistics, I point out to the table that in the mid-1960s, only 200 aboriginal people had graduated from post-secondary educational institutions in Canada. That was 200, period. Now, if I'm not mistaken—guys, correct me if I'm wrong—20,000 aboriginal people have graduated from post-secondary education, with another 30,000 in the system.

As we all know—former principal here—education is the leveller. I think we will see significant change in the dynamics in first nations communities, within Inuk communities and others, as levels of education improve and completion rates improve.

In Gathering Strength, one of the priority sections is education. My assistant deputy minister, Cynthia Williams, is here. We've focused on education as one of the initial priorities in Gathering Strength for the transition, looking at such things, as I said earlier, as improving the curriculum so that the curriculum makes sense to first nations youth, and they see themselves in the curriculum.

Improving the quality of teaching that occurs in first nations communities gives a better appreciation of who the audience is, who the students are, and what their reality is. As well as increasing budgets for primary and secondary schools, we are looking at opportunities that exist for post-secondary as well, recognizing that the millennium fund is going to be as important to aboriginal people as it is to other Canadians.

For us and for first nations and Inuit, education is one of the priority areas we have to address for a long-term sustainability and improvement in life. I can convey to you that this has been identified and is one of the priorities in Gathering Strength.

• 1000

The Chairman: Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Thompson—

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Thank you.

The Chairman: —a short question.

Mr. Myron Thompson: One short question?

The Chairman: Maybe two.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I heard the minister mention partnerships quite often. I assume the partnerships are those of the Liberal government of the day, the federal government, the governments of the provinces, and the chiefs in council. Why aren't the grassroots included in these partnerships? Why aren't they represented at the tables where you have many of these discussions? That's my first question.

They have people like Rita Galloway, in northern Saskatchewan, who works hard for accountability with grassroots people, and there are people like Leona Freed and like the many others located throughout the country with whom I'm in contact. I am pleased to report that in my travels across the country there are some reserves that are very good, that are very successful at doing good economic development. They have chiefs in council who are well educated and are doing a fine job of looking after their people.

I'm sad to report that with regard to the majority of those I've seen, if it weren't for churches and for caring people, they'd be starving on these lands. I've been in their homes, their tarpaper shacks. I've sat with them. I've broken bread with them. They're the most hospitable people you could ever be entertained by.

The elders have talked at length about the terrible tragedies taking place. Suicide rates are way too high, and we all know that. In Winnipeg, Regina, and, having checked with the police forces, Calgary now, the streets are beginning to fill up with young people who are being taken from the reserves into gangs because there they feel they have some security, a sense of hope, and a sense of help.

Why is your department so neglectful in dealing with those particular people? You do not invite them to the tables, you do not have a group of people.... I think the committee should go there and sit in the very homes I sat in. Even the Senate committee has admitted that they would like to do that. I hope they do. You have to get in there and see it with your own eyes and talk to these people face to face. Forget the elite partners. Why don't you include a fourth partner—the grassroots people? They are excluded.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Let me respond to that in a number of ways. First and foremost, like you, Mr. Thompson, I travel to these communities. I've just returned from Shamattawa, where I met with all community members, in their homes and at a public meeting. I'd like to convey to you that I've met with your colleague, the member from Lakeland, with community members from his riding. I'll be meeting with a grassroots individual with your colleague, the member for Crowfoot. So I don't at all feel that there's an exclusion of aboriginal people in the way that you present it.

In that regard too, however, I would recognize that in order to build sustainable relationships, there has to be an appreciation that duly elected men and women have the responsibility to speak for their people and to build policies and strategies that speak to the needs of their communities. That's precisely what happens when I meet with chiefs and councils, at the local level, at the tribal council level, at the regional level, or with the AFN, just the way that our constituents expect you, I suppose, to speak on their behalf. There's a structure that is put into place whereby we are supporting a true government-to-government relationship and, in so doing, clarifying levels of responsibility and accountability—and I'm not going to shy away from that.

I think the point you make is a fair one in terms of how, in some communities, the chiefs in council are making tremendously positive strides. They have the capacity to entertain all the options provided to them, either by the federal government or through other avenues, and they are making those opportunities work. In other communities, that's not the reality. That's why, in Gathering Strength, the issue of focusing on capacity building is so important.

I'm not prepared to take the dump-and-run strategy of the past, of—as I said earlier—deciding that everybody is going to be self-governing so that by the year 2000 that's the only option that exists. Rather, the approach that we're taking is to look at their capacities and their requirements, first nation by first nation. Instead of having these blanket strategies that come from Ottawa, our approach is to give the flexibility to our regional officials as well as to convey to the communities that we have to work together to focus on the needs of individual communities, that there is no common answer for everyone.

• 1005

Now, in that regard, as we look at communities in crisis—and there are some—the strategies have to be different, but we aren't going to be successful if we take approaches that encourage division, that pit one group against another. Rather, we have to take approaches that build strong communities and have the opportunities, as you point out, to bring people together. We're starting to see that becoming fundamentally far more part of first nations community governance.

When you think of the fact that, by and large, if you're an Indian Act band, your election occurs every two years, believe me, there are a lot of public opportunities. Encouraging that is a priority, not only for me but for the Assembly of First Nations, as is encouraging the work they are doing in building institutions of governance and focusing on that, along with working on accountability with groups like the certified general accountants. It's happening regionally with summits of chiefs who then go back to their communities and build codes of conduct. It's happening locally, not the least of which.... I would point to Saulteaux First Nation, as I mentioned earlier.

So it's happening in transition, and I just want to point out that the issue of accountability is no different for first nations government than it is for any other government. You've seen significant changes in the approaches of accountability at the federal level, so it's not an issue unique to first nations or to Inuit government.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Is the minister's bill—

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Thompson.

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: Do you support the idea of an ombudsman?

Mrs. Jane Stewart: What I prefer is working with first nations to find the appropriate institutions of governance that will work. I think there do have to be effective places for first nations to go. We're looking at issues of.... Whether it's an ombudsman or whether it's a more specific position, like an auditor general, I'm not sure, but those are things that we're working on in partnership with the first nations.

Mr. Myron Thompson: You keep using that word.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: Yes, and we are.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Well, sorry, but you missed the grassroots—in a big way.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Stewart. I know that you have a Cabinet meeting, but I have received a message, and I would like to pass it on to you. It's a message from Mr. Nungak, the Chairman of the Makivik Corporation in Nunavik. He wanted to thank you for being available at the beginning of January to the families and the people who were going through so much sorrow and pain after the avalanche in Kangiqsualujjuaq. He has asked me to thank you publicly for spending four days in Kuujjuaq and in Kangiqsualujjuaq providing support to the families and the people. Thank you very much.

[English]

Mrs. Jane Stewart: It was a real pleasure. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. The officials from the department can introduce themselves. Good day, Mrs. Stewart, and

[English]

thank you very much.

Mrs. Jane Stewart: I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you for the report. I'll look forward to your subsequent report.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We continue. Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister just commented on the fact that we need new approaches in order to discourage divisions and build partnerships. One of the issues that urban centres are facing, particularly, for example, in the greater Toronto area, is the fact that 48% of homeless people are aboriginals. Yet, off-reserve aboriginals are the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources, who, we understand, has no money when it comes to this issue.

Clearly we have a problem—which we recognize—in urban centres. The minister responsible doesn't have the dollars to do anything and yet he has the responsibility, which makes no sense to me. The federal government has indicated that we want to show leadership and partnership, not ownership, in this issue, but obviously, working with the provincial government and with the municipal government, we have to address this issue. I'd like to get your comments on that in light of the minister's observations.

Second, Mr. Chairman, with regard to treaties like the Nisga'a treaty and others, there has been concern, particularly among municipal leaders in Canada, that we are unofficially creating a third order of government, that although constitutionally we're not making changes, we are clearly empowering aboriginal communities with powers far beyond those of municipal governments in this country.

• 1010

There are not formal linkages, communication linkages and others, although there are informal ones, and there have certainly been very many examples of successes, which you would be aware of through the Centre for Municipal Aboriginal Relations in Ottawa.

But there is great fear that in fact municipalities are being relegated to a fourth order. That certainly has been an issue with regard to Nisga'a and others. I'd like your comments on that.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, on the issue of land claims, some might say that we've made an art of victimization in our history here, that we have not communicated very effectively what land claims are all about. Is this in fact the final process? Or is it in fact something that will be re-opened 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years from now, for more dollars? Certainly there are questions that I receive, like, for example, what is this process really about? I don't know if we, as a government and as a department, have necessarily really effectively communicated what this is all about.

I ask for your comments on those three issues.

Mr. Scott Serson (Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): On the question of homelessness, the Minister referred to the federal government's policy position vis-à-vis on-reserve and off-reserve aboriginal people. We feel quite clearly that our responsibilities lie on reserve. In terms of the contribution that we can make in regard to the homelessness problem in Canada, it relates to our efforts to improve—with first nations—the housing stock on reserve. Our concern has to be that we might be contributing to the homelessness problem on reserve if the housing stock is not expanded and if the quality of that stock is not improved and drives first nations off reserve seeking better accommodation. I think that's the role that we have to play there.

Cynthia has been working on that issue. She may have some additional comments she wants to make.

Ms. Cynthia Williams (Assistant Deputy Minister, Socio-economic Policy and Programming and Program Re-design Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): In terms of the effort to address the housing situation on reserve, there's no question that there's a lot further to go. I think that's the first comment we would all want to make.

That said, we are pursuing a number of activities, and when we look at their impact, we really believe that we're moving in the right direction. Really, there have been three kinds of initiatives that I think are responsible for that. One—and the Minister alluded to it—is the new policy approach, which is now a few years old. Fundamentally, as the Minister said, it's an acknowledgement by the department that maybe the way in which we administered programs in the past was part of the problem, that we were attaching too many precise rules to the way money could be spent. We created more flexibility for first nations so they could use their housing dollars to do things like repair houses and extend the lives of houses, as well as to build new houses. We've seen some impact as a result of that.

A second major thrust, which is led as much—or more—by first nations communities as it is by us, is the increased involvement of the private sector in seeking out private capital to help accelerate the building of houses. Lately there have been a number of examples across the country. I could provide you with some details of instances where banks, with first nations, are entering into agreements to provide various financing arrangements.

The third thrust is, frankly, simply to accelerate the investment in housing in order to address the issue of adequacy and overcrowding. That is reflected in commitments of new and additional dollars through Gathering Strength to, as I say, simply accelerate it and target it to the communities that are facing some of the most severe conditions and that are also interested in working under this new policy.

There's no question that there's a long way to go yet.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: That will address the bleeding that's going on, but it doesn't address the problem of that 48% in downtown Toronto who are on the streets.

The money isn't there. Regardless of what you're doing on reserve, somebody needs to get this together and say, “We have a problem, and how do we address that problem?”

Mr. Scott Serson: I think what the Minister was trying to get across is that we are making an effort with our provincial colleagues to say this: let's set jurisdiction aside and let's look at the collectivity of this problem.

• 1015

I think the Minister would acknowledge that if first nations are going to have adequate economic opportunities, particularly those in the northern parts of provinces, that's then going to require provincial co-operation, in the same way that we, along with other federal partners, are prepared to come to the table to look at how we can best help them with the problem of urban aboriginal peoples. As the minister said, we don't see that as a jurisdictional issue. We see that as more of a partnership issue: how do we work together to solve these problems?

You asked two other questions, one on self-government and the importance, I think, of working with municipalities across the country and encouraging that level of dialogue. We invested, of course, in the Centre for Municipal Aboriginal Relations, and we are seeking to encourage first nations across the country to engage in the kinds of discussions with municipalities that lead to good solid relations, so that when issues arise they can be dealt with expeditiously, so that there's a relationship of trust there in which to do that kind of problem solving.

On the issue of land claims, I can't deny that probably more of an effort could be made in terms of public education.

You asked about an end to this. I will comment on two parts of our claims policy. With respect to comprehensive claims with aboriginal people, increasingly we are now negotiating packages that include the land rights issues plus self-government issues. I think the assurance that first nations are seeking from us is that in the area of self-government, where we are talking about capacity building, where we are talking about new challenges that may come forward in the future, there will be an ongoing government-to-government relationship.

In other words, between the federal government and the provinces you have two distinct jurisdictions, and yet the relationship needs to continue to be there; there can be challenges that provinces face where they continue to need federal assistance. First nations, I think, based on our history, are saying that they don't want to see the land claim as the end; they want to see the land claim as a new stage of government-to-government relations. I'm thinking particularly of the first nations in the Yukon, which would very much take that point. That's on comprehensive claims.

With respect to specific claims, the difficulty, I think, is that a good deal of research is being done out there in terms of our history. As the minister said, there are a number of factors that are contributing to the number of specific claims and that are still being identified. One is the large number of land takings that did take place in our history. Second, from 1927 to 1951, under the Indian Act, there was a bar to first nations hiring lawyers, so they in fact did not have the capacity to bring these claims.

So there is a good deal of work being done on specific claims, but there is a continual process of research, of identification, and of assessment of where we might have some legal responsibility and liability, primarily in the area of land takings, which produces new, legitimate claims.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Before I give the floor to Ms. Hardy, I would like to ask you or Ms. Williams a question. A report on Aboriginal development and the pressing problems in Nunavik was tabled in the House of Commons, but we are going to talk about housing. We have a problem providing housing in the North: it costs $30,000 to ship each house.

• 1020

At present, there are no roads to Nunavik. The only means of transportation are boats in the summer and airplanes. At present, there are 18, 20, 22 or 23 people living in two or three-bedroom units. There are many cases of tuberculosis and of social problems. Have you carried out a comprehensive study in Nunavik, particularly in the isolated areas, or even in other provinces to determine how to build more housing? We know that in Nunavik, 425 more houses are needed to house the Inuit.

When we receive refugees from other countries, we house them and feed them. They are very well housed in hotels. We have a problem here at home, in Nunavik and in other Cree villages in Canada. How are you going to create jobs and teach them to build houses? For example, the Cree living in Grande-Baleine are building houses with the help of a professor, an engineer. The Cree are the ones who are building the houses. But there is a problem: 425 houses are needed for the Inuit of Nunavik. The people living in Mistassini have the same problem, but they are lucky, because they have a road. There are cases of tuberculosis in Nunavik and social problems, and the houses are crammed full. Have you tried to find solutions to this problem?

[English]

Mr. Scott Serson: Monsieur St-Julien, over the last couple of months, with our colleagues at CMHC, we concentrated on getting some emergency housing in there for this housing season, but we still have a fundamental kind of legal issue as to the nature of our responsibilities, the nature of CMHC's responsibilities, and the nature of the Government of Quebec's responsibilities subsequent to the James Bay and northern Quebec legislation.

We have agreed that we will sit down and begin to look at that over the next couple of weeks to see if we can't find a permanent solution, because we recognize the difficulties that the Inuit of northern Quebec are facing. Those discussions are going to begin shortly.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Hardy.

[English]

Ms. Louise Hardy: Thank you.

I was wondering if you've kept records of children, of the movement of children, particularly in residential schools. I know of people who don't know where their brothers and sisters went because they never came back in the first place.

Also, into the 1960s in the Yukon, children would be sent out...[Technical Difficulty—Editor]...hospital and then a letter would be sent out to the the first nations parents telling them to come and get their child within two weeks or the child would be adopted. That's what happened to a lot of kids.

I know that people are working in the reunification area, but they can't get access to where those children went, to who adopted them, and to who gave permission. Of course, at the best of times in the Yukon, to send a letter and expect it to be answered within two weeks is ridiculous. To think that the government was even part of something like that is really cruel.

These people are still looking, in some cases for their children or in some cases for their brothers and their sisters, because they went from some rural place in the Yukon to a hospital in Vancouver and effectively disappeared. Nobody knows where they are. If you do have records in regard to where these children went, would anybody be able to access them? Also, of course, who on earth had the right to do that in the first place?

In the context of the Gathering Strength document around the focus on education, post-secondary education funding has in fact been cut for first nations people in the Yukon. You can get some education in the north, but you can't get a wide variety of.... A couple of degrees are available through the college and through connections with other universities. But with tuition costs going up—and with the cost of everything going up—to cut back on education when it has clearly been made a priority in the Gathering Strength document just doesn't make any kind of sense if you want to give first nations people an opportunity to get training or further education in a profession.

• 1025

Some chiefs have been coming to me and saying in regard to the negotiated agreements that now that they're supposed to be implemented they are actually being reinterpreted; they're having to renegotiate the plan. The department is saying, well, that's not what you negotiated, and they're saying, yes, this is what we negotiated. Some of them are getting to the point of thinking, well, we're just going to have to go to court on this. That is against the spirit of the Gathering Strength document as well, because the spirit there was to negotiate, not litigate.

On housing, I was in a northern James Bay town in Ontario. Just this one reserve is short by 150 houses. It's complicated, because the Ontario government changed all of its social welfare, so the effect of a shortage of housing has been magnified 500 times, because they will only get enough money for the head of the household in one house, and they can have three or four generations in that one house, with up to 20 people expected to live on the income of two people. The work-for-welfare regime doesn't suit reserves, not by any stretch of the imagination.

I'd like your comments, particularly your comments on the records of children.

Ms. Cynthia Williams: I'm sorry, but on the first question on the records of children, I don't have that information today. I'd be happy to look into that and get back to you on it. I know that it varies very much in terms of residential schools and the records kept there and the records kept by child welfare agencies. Another example, the example you used, is the example of children who may have left the communities for medical treatment. I'd be happy to look into that and get back to you.

Mr. Scott Serson: On post-secondary education, I believe there was a unique situation in the Yukon. I'd certainly be willing to get you a briefing note on that. Overall, our post-secondary education budget continues to rise. It is fair to say that demand is outstripping the funds that are available there because of the demographic growth in first nations communities, but we've continued to put the 2% increase that we get as a department into post-secondary education; we have continued to do that over the past few years.

On the question of renegotiating agreements, I'm not familiar with the particular cases there, but there is no doubt that we have to continue to improve the quality of our definition of those agreements, the kind of quality work that we put in them, and we have to learn from one set of negotiations to another where some of that lack of clarity is that can lead to problems afterwards—so that we minimize those problems. Because—I agree with you—these agreements are meant to build relationships, and it's a shame if they have to be taken into the courts.

With regard to the final questions, Cynthia, on housing and welfare reform in Ontario, do you want to make a couple of comments?

Ms. Cynthia Williams: Maybe I'll make a general comment first, and that is, the example really illustrates the kind of interaction between provincial systems and our systems. The challenge when a province does introduce big changes to things like the welfare system is this: what is the impact on reserve and how can we work to minimize a negative impact? The example you gave is a really good one in that regard.

It's that sort of pressure where there's a shortage of housing on reserve that has led us to make housing such a priority and to look at, as I say, a multiple-track strategy on how we can move quickly to reduce it. The efforts I outlined earlier were in the housing field. In fact, we're looking at how other programs can help contribute to relieving some of the housing pressure. A good example there might be what we're trying to do in our own welfare reform initiatives. We're looking to assist people to become able to move off income support into paid work and obviously then improve their own opportunities to access different kinds of housing. It is a big issue and we're trying to come at it in those various ways.

Ms. Louise Hardy: Thank you.

The Chairman: Merci. Thank you.

• 1030

Mr. Scott Serson: We can get follow-ups for Ms. Hardy on the issue of children's records and on post-secondary education in the Yukon and what the particulars were of the funding formula up there.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Serson.

Nancy Karetak-Lindell, followed by Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): On the issue of housing, Cynthia talked about different financing agreements and partnerships with different private sector partners. Was that strictly for on reserve also? Is that available for off reserve? When you talk about on reserve, it doesn't affect anyone in my riding because I don't have any reserves, but housing is as much an issue there as it is in every northern part of Canada. I am very worried about the housing situation in that I don't feel we can address any other issues until we deal with one of the basic needs of people, and that's shelter.

We can put money into education and we can put money into self-government and all of that, and we can try to put money into social programs to get people off welfare into jobs, but unless we can deal with the basic need of shelter, I feel that all the money that we put into those initiatives.... They will not be as successful as they would be if we would have individual families in their individual homes instead of having three generations in one home.

I have some proposals from some communities that are trying to tackle the housing situation on their own but are having great difficulty in getting some assistance from the government side, whether it be, as you say, financing agreement situations.... Maybe you can direct me to the right path so I can find out the right information for these people, who, by the way, are trying to take the matter into their own hands and do something in the communities.

My other point is about your comment that if they start working they can go from one home to another. That really is not an option in a lot of my communities, because there are no others to move to. IRAP was a good program, but it only renovated what was there. Our problem is, what if there is not enough to house the people? As Jane pointed out, the population is growing faster among aboriginals than it is in other areas, and we're just not keeping up with the population growth as far as housing is concerned.

Mr. Scott Serson: From our point of view, the issue of housing in the territories, in the new Nunavut territory just as with the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, is really an issue for the government of the territory. There are programs available through CMHC that might be of some help, although I'm certainly no expert on those programs.

The kind of support that we have offered the territories in the past was in terms of sharing of data, of demography, that kind of support, because we do feel that the pressure felt in all three territories on the question of aboriginal housing is one that we share south of 60° on reserve and, therefore, there is an opportunity to share demographic trends, best practices, and those kinds of things.

But we are not directly involved in housing in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and I wouldn't expect that we would be directly involved in housing in Nunavut, other than, as I say, where we can help, to act as a bit of a go-between on the basic formula financing for the territories, whether it is accounting for aboriginal demography or with our colleagues at CMHC in terms of programming that's available and in terms of federal-provincial-territorial agreements that the territory might be able to access.

• 1035

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: What about that question on the financing agreements that Cynthia was talking about? Are those strictly for reserves?

Ms. Cynthia Williams: Yes, I was referring to the initiatives for the reserves, and especially to the challenges that arise as a result of the Indian Act, the restrictions on security. As the deputy mentioned, CMHC does have some programs that reach northern communities. We are working with CMHC and with the ITC to address some of the issues that you're talking about, to make sure those programs work as effectively as they can in northern communities.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Okay. Maybe I'll get some of those from you.

The Chairman: Merci, Nancy.

Monsieur Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you very much.

I still want to pursue this question of treaty land entitlement money, because people come and ask me about it from time to time. One of the questions that has been posed to me, which I couldn't answer, was this one: is the interest on treaty land entitlement funds to accrue to the fund, or is it to go into band general revenues, or can it be spent on individual Indians, who, I understand, are not to benefit from the treaty land entitlement money which is held in trust for the purpose of the fund? Is the fund to grow with all of the interest going into it? Or is it to retain its value with respect to inflation? Or is it simply the core fund that is supposed to be retained until it's spent on land?

The other question I never really got an answer to is the question of this Saulteaux First Nation. I wonder who is going to be the loser in that issue. Is it going to be the taxpayer? Or is it going to be the Indians, who are now all that much poorer collectively as a result of what happened to their treaty land entitlement money?

Mr. Scott Serson: I'm not sure that we have any experts on treaty land entitlement with us, but let me start with a couple of comments about how I understand the situation. Then I'll see if my colleague, Mr. Austin, can add anything.

I think the basic principle with treaty land entitlement funds is that they must be retained until the first nations have purchased land equivalent to the treaty requirement.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Can I just get you to clarify that? When you say that, though, inflation is always a factor. Does that mean that interest stays in the account? Or does that mean that just an amount in the account relative to land values has to be kept?

Mr. Bill Austin (Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Sir, I think we'd have to get back to you on some of the specific details.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Because that's the important question. That's what I really wanted to know.

Mr. Bill Austin: But let me start by saying that generally these funds have been made available under certain agreements with each of the first nations that were involved. I think that about two dozen first nations were involved. The funds are being held in separate accounts and there are management regimes around those which are contained in the agreements. I would have to look at the details of that.

Mr. Scott Serson: We could commit to getting you the answer to those specific questions.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you. I would appreciate that, because people definitely want to know the answer. I can't answer them now, but I promised to get some answers for them.

May I ask another question?

The Chairman: Oui, Monsieur Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: In the estimates, something called the Canadian Polar Commission is mentioned. It has a budget of just under a million dollars.

• 1040

I have a number of questions about that, because I recall a newspaper article last year about Dr. Deborah Rice, who left the Canadian government in frustration over unfinished work relating to the northern study of country food and the effects of toxic contaminants that fall out of the atmosphere when they hits the colder northern weather there. Does this commission deal with those types of things?

Not only that, I'd like to know how many people are currently on the board, how long they've served, and to whom their employees—if there are employees—report. Also, can you give me a description of the activities of the polar commission?

Mr. Scott Serson: With me I have Mr. Jim Moore, the ADM of the northern affairs program, who can answer those questions for you.

Go ahead, Jim.

Mr. James R. Moore (Assistant Deputy Minister, Northern Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you.

When the question of the polar commission arose at this time last year, I think the commission was still in a state of transition. The minister has now appointed a complete roster to the board, so there are eight members of the board. It is chaired by Mr. Mike Robinson. These appointments took place within the past three months.

Since the pulling together of or the constituting of the new board, the commission has had an opportunity to in fact table with the minister what they call a strategic vision for the work they will undertake in the future.

Incidentally, there are three employees. There is room for four employees. They work as staff members who would report to the chair.

Just to give you a flavour of the kinds of activities the commission would be undertaking this year—and it loops back to your question on contaminants—they will be undertaking to establish a polar information network and hopefully complete that by March 2000. They are attempting to provide a citizen's perspective in the development of northern science policy across the country. They will be undertaking some work to create a set of indicators to demonstrate the state of northern knowledge and hopefully do that during this year. As well, they will be generally reporting on polar issues and the state of polar knowledge, starting April 1, 1999.

Mr. Scott Serson: Can I come back to this, though? I heard that reference to contamination and I want to assure you that we take that issue of contaminants in country food very seriously. In fact, in 1997-98, we worked together with Health Canada and Environment Canada—and possibly other departments, Jim—to get approval for a northern contaminants program, which ensures that research work and international discussions will continue in an effort to reduce the contaminants in the Arctic food chain. As you're probably aware, most of those contaminants are airborne persistent pollutants. They're not Canadian made for the most part; they're international.

Jim, do you have the dollar amount for that?

Mr. James Moore: The total contribution for the main estimates year will be $3.6 million for work on northern contaminants.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Does that fall under the Canadian Polar Commission?

Mr. James Moore: No, that's outside the budget for the Canadian Polar Commission.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Before we conclude, I would like to ask you two short questions. Ms. Karetak-Lindell touched on housing in the North.

• 1045

The committee has heard testimony from the mayors of the communities of Umiujaq and Akulivik, who told us, “I know that you'll hit the ball into Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's court, but I can't wait for you to hit a home run like McGwire and give them a good answer about the housing problem in the North.” The boats are arriving this summer, in July or August, and the people are waiting for them. Some families are looking forward to getting cardboard boxes or wooden boxes to build housing for next winter. Things have got so bad in Nunavik and certain Native reserves in Canada that people wait for boats to come in so they can get cardboard boxes containing certain material to build themselves houses. One mayor told the committee that three families were arguing over these cardboard and wooden boxes that they were going to use to build housing. Things have got that bad.

I don't understand why the federal government does not send a humanitarian mission there, like the ones they send to other countries. Nor do I understand why your officials or officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation haven't spent several weeks living in these communities, it doesn't matter where in Canada, in Nunavut, in Nunavik, on the reserves in the North, in Manitoba or in the Yukon. I wonder why officials don't go and live there for a week or two to see just how bad the housing crisis is. We currently have a crisis, particularly in the North. That's my first question.

My second has to do with the funding allocated to housing. Your reports shows $177 million, which is the same amount as last year and an additional $20 million that does not appear here. As of March 1999, the government has helped approximately 74 First Nations in Canada with housing, but I don't think anything has been provided for Quebec. There is only funding for the other provinces. Why is this not shown in your Report on Plans and Priorities? Seventy-four First Nations have received a contribution, and we would like to get the list. We also want to know whether Manitoba got any of this funding. We are currently seeing some really unpleasant reports about the housing situation in Manitoba.

I have to say one thing in closing. When houses are built in the North, be it in Nunavik or on Native reserves, people living in the south are always the ones making money, because they are the ones providing the wood, the doors and so on. There's a whole circuit. That's important for the people of the south, because they are the ones sending the materials to build houses.

This is an urgent matter. We know that there is a serious crisis. The medical care that people in these communities require is very expensive. We have to send them to hospitals in Canada for treatment because of housing-related problems.

[English]

Mr. Scott Serson: Let me start by reiterating that in Nunavik, I think, we have a unique jurisdictional situation, which we have to sort out. We are committed to sorting that out.

More broadly than that, Monsieur St-Julien, it is a question of policy and dollars. What we have been trying to do in our first nations housing policy—now this would not apply in Nunavik—is to encourage first nations to take a greater interest in the maintenance of the housing, to do longer-term housing plans so that they can identify their needs, plan over a cycle, and build into those plans any opportunity they can to generate employment on reserve, like using those plans for training purposes, using local supplies, and using innovative methods.

So part of the challenge this government has given us as a department is this: how are you going to improve the sustainability of that housing stock so that we know that where we invest in houses they will be well maintained, the duration will last, and the first nations will be making a contribution to that housing stock?

• 1050

Beyond that, it becomes a question of the scarce dollars available to devote to housing. As you noted, when we came to the end of last fiscal year and saw that had some dollars from other programs that weren't going to be expended, we invested them in our housing program. But because we feel that move to the new policy is important, we said that we would make it available to first nations that were either in the policy or prepared to move to the new policy—in other words, to get involved in creating those plans and terms and moving in that direction.

In those terms, I think, quite a bit of that money did go into Manitoba, because that's where we had the take-up from the first nations. They were saying yes, they were prepared to go to the new housing policy. Perhaps Cynthia could elaborate on that.

Ms. Cynthia Williams: I will just confirm what the deputy was saying: for the money that we determined was available at the end of the year, one of the highest priorities to spend that on was housing, precisely because of the kinds of issues that have been identified around the table. A total of $20 million became available in the spring. That was directed, in the end, to a total of 79 first nations, all of whom were operating under the housing policy or had made application to come under it.

Mr. Scott Serson: I should say as well, Monsieur St-Julien, that in terms of getting some houses into Nunavik for this season, we did identify $5 million from our A-base as well, so that we share the cost of this housing season with CMHC. I think it's about fifty-fifty, our $5 million and their $5 million, and then, I think, we were hoping for an equal contribution from the Government of Quebec.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I am familiar with that file; 30 or 31 houses are being built. Let me give you an example. In Grande-Baleine, in the Cree and Inuit village, Chief Mukash has adopted a new strategy for building houses; he has hired an engineer from Val-d'Or whom I know quite well, Jean-Pierre Brunet. He doesn't go to the community of Grande-Baleine to make money, he goes to show the Cree how to build houses and maintain them. This is a success story. I've never seen anything like it. For the past three years, all the workers have been Cree; the foremen are Cree too. I can give you his telephone number; it's 819-825-4999.

Talk to this engineer. It's the greatest program that brings white people and native people together to build housing. I've never seen anything like it. It's a real success. But the problem in that community is that one street separates the Inuit from the Cree; the Cree are building houses, but the Inuit on the other side of the street can only watch them build because they don't have a cent. The Inuit can only watch, and they are the ones who are having problems. That is why we have to find some solutions. Could you provide us with the list of the 74 or 79 First Nations who got some of that $20 million?

Mr. Scott Serson: Yes, we can send you that list.

The Chairman: We really appreciate your efforts. We know that you are working hard. We too have to monitor the situation. The health of our friends is at stake. The Inuit, the Cree, the Native peoples of Canada are our friends and neighbours, and we must find a solution this year, because several thousand more houses are needed. From a financial point of view, there would be something in it for the people living in the south who are involved in residential construction. I would particularly like to see what you are going to establish for the construction and long-term maintenance of houses, as well as your plans to create jobs for Native people. That's what is truly important.

Are there any other questions?

Mr. Konrad.

• 1055

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I was just interested in knowing whether the government is on schedule to alleviate the housing shortage, as was recommended by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. They recommended that the housing shortage in these aboriginal communities be alleviated within 10 years of the tabling of the report. Could you advise me as to whether the government is on some kind of a schedule that arises out of those recommendations, and if it is, where are you on the timeline?

Mr. Scott Serson: I guess the answer to that is that the government has not committed to that kind of timeline on housing. We have adopted a new policy and we are working with first nations people on a wide variety of possible solutions, but I think, as Cynthia alluded to earlier, we feel that those solutions are going to, in the long run, involve first nations hopefully making greater use of private sector capital to finance much more of their own housing construction. The kinds of incremental dollars that you would be talking about for the government to solely solve that problem are certainly not available to us right now.

Just to be clear, what we did get for housing in terms of our response to the royal commission report was $20 million a year. As I tried to say, we're trying to use that and encourage first nations to use that to maximize the benefits to the greatest degree possible. It's scarce resources.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: So there is roughly $20 million for reserves...?

Mr. Scott Serson: Twenty million dollars in incremental resources on top of the existing housing budget, which is—

Ms. Cynthia Williams: The total is about $200 million a year.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: In closing, I would like to thank you for appearing. We rarely have the opportunity to say this to you. I know that sometimes we shake you up a bit so that you find solutions to the problems of our Native friends, but we do appreciate your work. We do not meet with you everyday, but I do thank you very much for the work you do for all the Native people in Canada.

The meeting is adjourned.