AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 5, 2000

• 1531

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 81(7), we're going to have consideration of the 2000-01 estimates, part III, report on plans and priorities, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the Canadian Polar Commission.

Appearing before the committee this afternoon is the Honourable Robert Nault, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who's accompanied by three of his senior assistants: Shirley Serafini, deputy minister; Gordon Shanks, assistant deputy minister; and Dennis Wallace, associate deputy minister. Welcome.

Just before we begin, I thought it only appropriate to welcome the young people from the Forum for Young Canadians, who are here this week seeing how business is carried on in the Parliament of Canada. Some of us are going to enjoy dinner with you tonight. I'm looking forward to that. We hope you enjoy your session with the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

I'd ask the minister to carry on with his opening statement.

Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll make some comments and then of course be prepared to answer any questions the committee might have.

Good afternoon, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, and, more importantly, young people from the Forum for Young Canadians. It's my pleasure to appear before you and speak about the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Government of Canada's action plan in support of aboriginal people and northerners assuming their place in the social, economic, and political fabric of this country.

Let me begin by reflecting on where we have been. You will recall that the Government of Canada launched Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan some two years ago. You will also remember that one of the principal pillars of Gathering Strength was the statement of reconciliation. In that statement, the government acknowledged that the ways of the past have left an unfortunate legacy that individuals continue to deal with today.

As you know, Gathering Strength is a comprehensive policy approach based on four themes: strengthening the partnership; building strong, accountable aboriginal governments; designing a new fiscal relationship; and supporting strong, healthy communities, people and economies.

Since January 1998, we have seen considerable progress on all four themes, but most noticeably in the first area, the relationship. That's because improving and modernizing the relationship among governments, aboriginal people, and non-aboriginal Canadians is an integral part of all the work we do, and for good reason, because it's only with mutual understanding and trust that we're going to move forward in governance, in a modern fiscal relationship, and in supporting strong healthy communities and economies. In my view, we have made progress in our relationship. As a result, we look forward to even faster and more far-reaching progress in other areas.

We need to continue our work with a two-track focus: one that acknowledges the legacy of the past and what we need to do to continue addressing that legacy, and a track that looks to the future, an approach that helps us translate the trust and goals we're beginning to share into real and tangible improvements in the lives of individuals, because improving the lives of individuals is the common denominator in everything we do.

As we talk about moving forward, first nations people and Inuit want to know how this makes a difference in their life, in their community. Canadians want to know, too, what will change the often very grim picture painted by the media of life in aboriginal communities.

• 1535

I don't think I presume too much when I say that improving the lives of individuals is something that most members of this committee feel strongly about. And it's this goal that drives any advocacy work that you do on behalf of aboriginal people.

Having said that, it's important to understand that change can't be made overnight. The government's comprehensive approach is long term because it has to be, and because change can't be made in one area in isolation from others.

Let me give you an example to illustrate this point: housing, one of the greatest and most urgent needs facing first nations and Inuit in Canada. On the face of it the solution seems simple: money. In fact, the government alone doesn't have enough money to solve the problem; not this government or any other. And so it is immediately clear that the relationship is important, because we need other partners in government and the private sector at the table with their resources. Even with partners and resources, there are complications around leveraging those resources. The problem is that the Indian Act precludes real property ownership in fee simple by first nations. That makes it difficult to raise collateral and get access to capital.

Then there is the issue of spinoff benefits and sustainable economic development. We need to invest strategically to make sure we create jobs in the community that will stay in the community. We need to invest in training and skills development so that community members can take what they gain from one project to another and multiply their expertise. Beyond that, even with the financial and human resources in place to build housing, we need to ensure that there's a housing plan for the community. Appropriate governance structures must be in place to manage the community's activities in a responsible and effective way, again for the long term.

There's a role for the department here in ensuring that there is a suitable funding arrangement in place that allows first nations to plan for and manage major capital projects. There is often the issue of an inappropriate land base to accommodate long-term community housing needs. Many communities are living on inadequate land bases that haven't increased, even as the population on reserve is increasing at twice the Canadian average. Once we reach the construction stage, there are issues of structural integrity and economies of scale. Again, we need to invest strategically to make the most of a limited resource and new technologies. We need to do this in partnership so that decisions are made according to first nation priorities.

And, of course, a change for the better in housing has a positive impact on everything, from a family's health and safety to the education of children in the home, to the natural environment. Housing is just one illustration of the domino effect that a change in one aspect of an issue generates in others. That's why our work is so urgent and that's why it's so important that we get it right.

Mr. Chairman, my department is essentially a government within a government. Its range of responsibilities and jurisdiction is that broad. And so the challenge is immense. But we do have a plan, and it's a comprehensive approach that I believe is taking us in the right direction.

Let me now turn to the environment in which we work. We continue to receive direction from the courts at all levels. For its part, the Supreme Court continues to hand down decisions—most recently, as we all know, in Marshall—which affirm aboriginal and treaty rights. The high court is also sending a clear signal that we need to do something about the Indian Act. The Corbière decision was the first in what I think could be an opportunity for the systematic dismantling of the act because it can't stand the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Here in Ottawa and on the west coast we have been in the midst of a very public debate about the Nisga'a Final Agreement. This agreement has prompted wide-ranging discussion about treaty-making, and self-government and aboriginal rights.

• 1540

On the east coast, thanks to the Marshall decision, we are engaged in discussions about aboriginal and treaty rights and how we can achieve certainty, especially when it comes to potential access to resources for aboriginal people.

Nationally, as we witness the evolution of democracy on reserve, we are seeing more and more public debate about good government and what it means for first nations. But in spite of these and other major developments across the country, including the birth of the new territory of Nunavut, the Canadian public remains largely unaware of aboriginal issues.

Across the country the provinces are in different places on aboriginal rights. Some are very actively engaged in treaty-making and economic development and other important initiatives. Others are cautious, but hopefully willing, players. But more and more it is clear to me that the provinces need to be involved, all provinces, in a whole variety of areas.

As a partner of aboriginal people, the private sector leads by example. Governments can learn from the creative and practical approaches of resource companies to make sure that aboriginal people benefit from jobs and training as a result of developments going on in their backyard.

Mr. Chairman, I want to look at demographics. We know that the aboriginal population is extremely mobile and extremely young. In communities, again, we know there continue to be huge gaps in health, social, and economic indicators for aboriginal people as compared to other Canadians. Youth suicide, infant mortality, lack of running water, short life expectancy—the statistics are as familiar as they are harsh.

But there is also progress; for instance, progress in education, with more young people finishing post-secondary education and more youths staying in school at all levels.

There's progress in economic development. There is continuous growth in aboriginal businesses dealing locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally.

There is progress in health, with significant recent investments in aboriginal health care, on AIDS, and on diabetes to help close those gaps.

So as you see, we have to balance the past and the future and we have to balance our continuing work with celebrating success. That same balance must be achieved between improving our relationship and improving the quality of life for aboriginal people. In the past we haven't been able to overcome the disconnect in our relationship to work effectively together on the economic and social development that is so urgently needed. Now I think we have reached a balance between the two, and I'm very optimistic about the progress we can make.

So as we move forward, I see a shared agenda taking shape around six priorities.

The first is to continue to deal with the legacy and grievances of the past. Canadians, and parliamentarians as well, might wonder about the value of looking back, about the need to examine our history together to see how we can bring about reconciliation. I know that some question the value of doing this.

We have to look back in order to look forward, to rebuild lost trust, to get past the polarization that has characterized our relationship. You might ask why. It's because of decades of a passive, at times very adversarial, government approach. That's why. Aboriginal people have had to go to court again and again to get even the most basic recognition of their rights, and governments have fought them every step of the way.

We need to get to know each other, because whether we're dealing together in business, in government, or in society at large, we have to have trust and we have to have an understanding of what we are each all about. It's by agreeing that we share goals and by understanding each other's legitimate aspirations that we will be able to bring about the economic and social development that will change people's lives.

• 1545

Which brings me to the second priority: the need to create an aboriginal economy. As we all know, many aboriginal communities are among the most remote and isolated in the country. They often lack even the most basic infrastructure—the hydro, the roads, the water and sewer systems that we in this room quite frankly take for granted. But we also know these same communities are where major resource companies in this country do business.

First nations and Inuit are a ready-made labour force, investment partner, and corporate neighbour for the private sector. So how do we build an economy and create opportunity? First of all by investing in economic infrastructure. How can we talk about doing business and attracting investment in communities that you can't even get to by road, communities that have no hydro grid or water and sewer system? Obviously it's fundamental.

I'll use one small example to bring home to you the issue of economic infrastructure. In the richest jurisdiction in North America, called Ontario, 34 first nations have no access to roads. And you wonder why there's 80% or 90% unemployment. It's fundamental to me, as an Ontarian and as a Canadian, that we have to give people a starting point equal to that of all Canadians in order to be successful.

Settling land claims as fast as we possibly can will also help build an economy. It's the right thing to do, and it's an extremely effective and available economic development instrument. Beyond that, we need to look for opportunities to add to the land base of first nations so that they have what they need for housing, economic development, and social infrastructure projects.

We need to look at access to resources to see how, together with the provinces and territories, we can explore how aboriginal people can share in the sectors other Canadians have access to and how we can level the playing field so that there is an opportunity for aboriginal people to participate. As I have said, this is an area of our relationship where we can learn from corporate Canada.

In this vast country of ours, it's difficult to argue that there isn't enough to go around for everyone, but we need to find practical ways to share the wealth. With a little creativity and political will, I know we could put in place best practices and solutions.

Good governance is the other important requirement for ensuring certainty, stability, and community well-being. Stable and effective governments create an environment conducive to economic development. Sustainable governance structures and policies will ensure first nations can manage the economic and other affairs of their communities in an effective and responsible way.

It's key that we agree on a vision for this country that includes aboriginal people as active participants in our economy, and that we agree to build a comprehensive plan for inclusion in the economy of Canada, from infrastructure to investment. A common vision and a strategic plan would open up vast new opportunities for us to pursue. This kind of strategic view would take the edge off so many potential flashpoints among first nations and Inuit, the private sector, and governments.

From fishing and forestry to mining and minerals, the bottom line is that when people feel development is moving ahead without them, without their input, beyond their control, with no role for them to play, the potential for conflict is high. If we share a common vision and everyone recognizes that all parties have a role to play and a contribution to make, people can focus on making a deal instead of taking a stand.

• 1550

This brings me to my third and fourth priorities together: to modernize the Indian Act and then to find a modern treaty relationship that could and should eventually take the place of the Indian Act in describing how we are living together.

You have heard me say the Indian Act is outdated and paternalistic and that the Supreme Court will likely continue to strike down sections of the act if they don't meet the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To me it's clear something has to be done to address the obstacles and limitations this legislation represents, from the absence of protection for women's rights to restrictions on land use and the way I, as minister, am forced to be involved in the most minute details of the life of a first nations person.

I also understand that no matter how misguided it's been, one of the few tangible protections of first nations interests that governments have even bothered to put in place is in fact the Indian Act. So there's no point in doing away with the old until we have a vision of the future that we are confident will be better than the status quo.

As we explore the future, our government is committed to responding to first nations that want to move out from under the Indian Act by negotiating self-government agreements that reflect their aspirations. And for your information, there are now, across the country, some 80 negotiations dealing with self-government to bring first nations people outside of the Indian Act into a more comprehensive relationship.

Defining a modern treaty relationship flows naturally as the next goal as we look to move beyond the Indian Act—a relationship based on mutual respect and understanding, responsibility and sharing, just as it always should have been. Within this treaty relationship, we could set out a modern way to live together and a modern way to ensure the benefits that were intended to flow from historic treaties actually do.

When I talk about renewing the treaty relationship and defining a modern treaty relationship, concerns are raised about reopening historic treaties. This is not about reopening the treaties. Rather it's about making them real in a way that makes sense in a new millennium.

What encourages me in all of our efforts is the fact that there is a part of the country where we can look and see if what we're doing is working. I'm talking about the north: the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. I would refer to Canada's north as the fifth priority I see for our country, in particular the place of aboriginal people in a government-to-government-to-government relationship slowly growing up in each of the northern territories.

The role of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the north is unique. We are the primary face of the Government of Canada there, with all of the responsibilities and challenges that brings. Sometimes the competing interests we represent, as you might have heard, are difficult to reconcile. But if there's one thing that seems clear, it's that governance, economic development, and environmental stewardship in the north should reflect the priorities of all northerners, including of course aboriginal people.

If there's another thing we can agree on, it's that the concept of more control for northerners over land and resources has been talked about too much, too long, with too little to show for it. It's time the business of my department became the business of northerners.

In all three northern territories, we see dramatic social, economic, and political change under way. The territory of Nunavut is one year old and making significant strides as a new partner in Confederation. The territory is demonstrating stability and leadership as a new government.

Nunavut has the highest job creation growth in Canada. The economic development potential of Nunavut continues to grow with the territory. Nunavut has a large, dynamic labour force, skilled in traditional pursuits, with a rich primary natural resource base. The evolution of this new territory continues to be rapid and exciting.

• 1555

Looking west, we have three comprehensive land claim agreements covering nearly half of the Northwest Territories. We have seen the recent opening of Canada's first diamond mine. Each day we move closer to realizing the start of a second mine.

Increasing demand and favourable economies are driving the exploration of significant oil and gas potential. The recoverable conventional oil potential in the Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta region alone compares with that remaining in Alberta. As you can see, the potential for economic growth in the GNWT is humongous, and should be exciting to us all.

Canada, aboriginal organizations, and the Government of the Northwest Territories are discussing devolution, trying to put government-to-government-to-government principles to work in a very practical manner that will safeguard the rights and concerns of everyone around the table and the people they represent.

In the Yukon we continue to pursue advanced devolution discussions. We are working towards a modern government-to-government-to-government relationship based on a comprehensive and inclusive approach to developing governance structures, to sharing resources, to building the economy, and to managing the environment.

As you see, then, my department is an integral part of the daily lives of northerners and has a strong role to play in supporting the economic, social, and political development of the territories.

There's no question that as we try to design this modern relationship, balancing the past with the future and meeting economic challenges, we have our work cut out for us—all the more so because a large number of Canadians are simply unfamiliar with first nations and their aspirations.

This brings me to the need for public education. This really is a priority for me, one that cuts across our work in all of the areas I've already talked about. Across Canada, it is our challenge to explain such things as why we are morally and legally obliged to settle outstanding claims; to honour the treaty relationship; and to clear up damaging myths so that people understand that first nations people are contributing members of society.

For example, there are many people in Canada who don't know that the Inuit pay tax. I know my colleague who sits on the government side continues to say that she gets told, “Well, you don't even pay tax.” I mean, that's one simple example of the myths occurring in Canadian society that we have to deal with.

As we do that, it's absolutely critical that we demonstrate that first nation governments are good governments, run on sound principles, and accountable to the people they represent. We need a certain level of comfort among Canadians so that they understand what we're doing and why. If we work in an open and transparent way, and Canadians see the value of certainty in a modern relationship, I believe they will support what we need to do.

Dealing with the past, looking to the future, facilitating capacity development of first nation governments and administration, creating an aboriginal economy, modernizing the Indian Act, creating a modern treaty relationship and educating Canadians—these are the priorities I see that we can share with aboriginal people.

What will be the outcome of our work together if we focus on these priorities? We will see healthy aboriginal communities that have been able to heal and to come to terms with the legacy of residential schools and other wrongs of the past. There will be an understanding among Canadians that aboriginal governments can and should be judged by the same standards as every other government in Canada—not any less critically but not any more so.

We will deal with thriving aboriginal businesses that are able to get bank loans, leverage their capital, and attract investment partners. There will be a national certainty as a result of the resolution of outstanding land claims of all kinds.

• 1600

We will see the eventual end of litigation that pits governments against aboriginal people. There will be a recognition that the aspirations of aboriginal people are not a threat; rather, they want what other Canadians already have—a roof over their heads, good health, employment, and a bright future for their children. And so it follows that what is progress for aboriginal people is progress for the country as a whole.

This is the future I can see from afar. It's true that we have a long way to go, but it's by firmly setting our sights on what we hope to achieve as politicians, as leaders, and as citizens that we'll get there.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you will give some thought to how and where you and your colleagues and constituents can be part of this undertaking. Our work is as urgent as it is important, because we are shaping the face of our country for generations to come.

Thank you for allowing me to make comments. I'll be pleased to answer any questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I found it a most inspiring opening to our meeting today.

I'll turn to the Reform Party, with Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): It's the Canadian Alliance, actually.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): I'm sorry.

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister.

I would make an observation right at the beginning with regard to your talking about the fact that job creation has been successful in Nunavut. I represent a constituency called Skeena on the northwest of British Columbia, the largest community of which is Terrace. It has a population roughly equivalent to Nunavut's, about 25,000 people. I would just point out that if $1 billion was invested in Terrace, I think everybody there too would have a job.

I'd like to start by saying that your department is responsible for almost $5 billion in expenditures of taxpayers' money, and that's every year. I think that's what we're talking about today, the main estimates.

That expenditure has more than doubled in a very few short years, this decade, and yet the statistics you refer to with regard to the high infant mortality rate, teen suicide, low life expectancy, and housing conditions on reserves have not improved in spite of that tremendous increase in expenditure of taxpayers' money. In fact, unemployment levels have actually worsened over time. They are not improving.

I think the issue today is accounting for those billions of dollars in expenditures, and asking the question why, if the department has designed all these programs and is expending all this taxpayers' money, there has been no improvement. In fact, why are conditions on many reserves worsening instead of improving?

The first question I have for you, Mr. Minister, is to ask whether you or the departmental officials here today can tell us if any audit or evaluation reports have been done in, say, the last four years, or are currently in the works that this committee can have copies of. Can the department officials give us that information? Are there draft copies available of any ongoing reports or audits being done right now, any evaluations of program effectiveness, or any audits determining how money is expended? If so, are those reports publicly available, and can we have them?

Mr. Robert Nault: Yes, you can. All you have to do is look at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's website. All the audits are available for you. Every single one we do is put on the website. As they're completed, they're put onto the website, so just help yourself.

I understand more than 40 are there now, and if I'm not mistaken, we have two or three more that are just being completed. We will be releasing them as they're completed.

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you.

What you're telling us as a committee, then, is that no audit or evaluation reports that have been done in the last four years, by either internal or external contractors, have not been made public.

Mr. Robert Nault: That's right. All the audits we do internally are released on the website.

Mr. Mike Scott: Okay.

• 1605

My next question, Mr. Minister, is that some time ago, the government announced a $350 million healing fund with respect to the residential school situation. Can you tell us when that fund was actually established, how long it's been in place, and how many people who were victims of residential school abuse have actually benefited from that fund? As well, what is the structure for people to actually receive those benefits?

Mr. Robert Nault: I could probably ask one of the officials to give you a little bit more of the technical information, but I want to put a few things on the record in the opening part of the comments as it relates to the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

First of all, it's an arm's-length, incorporated institution that has its own corporate structure, approved by the Government of Canada, and its own board. As I understand it, it's been in place for just over a year. I'll get Gordon to give you the exact dates.

The majority of the first year was taken up by setting up the institution. At this point in time, it has expended somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40 million and has rolled out these projects to first nations and Inuit people across the country as they submit proposals to the board itself.

Gordon, you might want to give the member the exact numbers so that he would be aware of them.

Mr. Gordon Shanks (Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you, Minister.

It was incorporated on March 31, 1998, and formally put into place in May 1998. As Minister Nault has indicated, the first year was primarily spent on establishing the board of directors and the program design for that. It's a private, not-for-profit corporation, incorporated federally.

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Shanks, can you tell us how many aboriginal people who were victims of residential school abuse have actually benefited from the fund to date?

Mr. Robert Nault: One of the major components of the structure is an annual report submitted to Parliament. It's the board's interest to make all that available to you in the report.

If I'm not mistaken, Gordon, that first report has been released to Parliament.

Mr. Gordon Shanks: I believe it has, Minister.

Mr. Robert Nault: So it would be available to you. We don't have those exact numbers as to how many people have been helped by it at this point. Those are all in the report itself.

I'd be quite prepared to send you a copy of the report, but as I understand it, it was released to Parliament a number of months ago and is accessible by any member of this committee.

Mr. Mike Scott: The minister—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Ghislain Fournier.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Thank you, Minister, for coming to meet the members of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. I'd also like to thank all the young people here and tell them it is a real pleasure for us to have them here.

Minister, your speech was excellent and I have an 11-page text here. I do hope that this speech wasn't just an expression of wishful thinking.

In your third paragraph on page 2, you mention very concrete action. You set out four major themes that I would have liked to hear more details about. I'd like to know how they will be further developed in the future. You mentioned renewing partnerships and indicated we should recognize that our relations with the Native peoples have not improved very much and I'm happy to hear that said. I would have been quite unhappy to hear the contrary expressed. Our relations must continue to improve.

We hear it said more and more often that we invest a lot of money in our Aboriginal peoples. Although I'm not saying that's not a good thing—on the contrary, it's a very good thing—we seem to be witnessing the fact that the children and women of the Aboriginal nations are getting poorer. So where is the money going? How is it spent? I'd like you to tell us more about your objective of renewing partnerships.

• 1610

Your second objective is to reinforce the exercise of power by the Natives. That's a very praiseworthy objective. Without getting into the details of how you intend to do this, I'd like you to be a bit more specific and indicate if you think you'll attain this objective in a rather near future. We all know that this won't be an easy thing to do and it's important for us to know how you intend to achieve this result.

Your third objective is to establish a new fiscal relationship. My colleague on my right has already raised this matter and looked further into the matter of investments. It's important for us to know the budget and what new monies you will be investing to establish this new fiscal relationship.

Your fourth objective, which is to strengthen the communities and economies and support the people, surprised me.

Minister, I'd like to hear your comments on these four themes that I find excellent. I'd like you to give us more specifics and I do hope that we are going to pursue very specific objectives based on reliable data. How will be attain these objectives, which I do approve? Will we manage to attain them relatively shortly?

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: Well, thank you very much. You have asked me a question that probably could take us half an hour, but I will try to deal with a couple of the points, then ask some of my colleagues who are here from the department to speak, using some examples of what we mean by building strong first nation economies, and some of the best practices that I talked about in my opening remarks. I'll get Mr. Wallace to do that for you in a minute.

When we're talking about strengthening our partnership, as you know, the Indian Act has not been changed dramatically since 1951. The issue of strengthening our partnership is building modern-day governance structures in order to deal with things that people in this room may take for granted.

For example, the Indian Act itself is completely silent on the place of aboriginal women in the community. I'll just use one example, and that is matrimonial real property rights. There is no discussion of that in the act, and I suspect in the fifties when this act was brought into play, the discussion of the place of women in our society was not as prominent as it is today. So for us to build a partnership, we are going to have to make a significant change to that relationship either through amending the Indian Act or moving outside of the Indian Act with separate pieces of legislation to make sure that aboriginal women's rights are protected.

I'll give you an example of a process that is pretty obvious. In the Nisga'a treaty, we went a long way, as you know, to assure ourselves that the charter would apply, and that provincial family law would apply in the Nisga'a territory as it relates to aboriginal women's rights. That doesn't occur in first nations where the Indian Act applies. So it's our objective in working with our partners—and there's a joint initiative now between ourselves and first nations through the AFN—to look at the Indian Act, look at the whole issue of strengthening our partnership, and find ways we can deal in a modern context to improve our government-to-government relationship.

So I use that as an example of where we're concretely moving ahead, and where we think we will have some information to share with you in the coming months in the direction of building our partnership to be even stronger than it is today, using modern pieces of legislation.

On the issue of accountability, it's pretty obvious to all of us...and I will ask Gordon to give you a quick rundown, if I can, Mr. Chairman, because I believe, from what I've read and what I hear on TV, there's a perception that somehow there is no fiscal accountability between the Government of Canada—this department—and first nations.

• 1615

So I'll ask Gordon to explain to you in a minute how our relationship relates to our agreements and what those audits do for us in making sure the programs that are delivered by first nations directly meet the test of accountability for us, as the fiduciary and as the protector of the taxpayers' money. I think it's important for people to understand that.

On the whole issue of building an economy, I think we have made significant steps. Part of my interest in building a relationship is to make sure people have an opportunity to be involved in the economy. I want to ask my colleague Mr. Wallace to give you some examples of some success stories, because they are there for us to see.

They happen to be in the territories and in the provinces. So if you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, even though this seems to be taking us a little while, I think it's important to show where the corporate sector in some provinces is going in order to create those economies we talked about to reduce the unemployment rate that we all desperately want to see reduced. So I'll start with Dennis, because of course I have a particular interest in creating economy.

Mr. Dennis Wallace (Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you, sir. I'll be very brief.

As the minister indicated in his remarks, for first nations to be successful they have to have access to the resources around them, they have to have access to capital, and more often than not, because the business community within first nations isn't fully developed yet, they need partnerships with the private sector. There are some very good examples across Canada that prove the success of that kind of partnership opportunity.

If I think about Saskatchewan for example, through the good efforts of that province working with first nations and with first nations taking charge of resources in some respects in traditional territories, fully 30% of the forestry resource in Saskatchewan is within companies that first nations are operating.

Those companies, particularly ones tied to the Meadow Lake Tribal Council, are bringing in literally millions and millions of dollars of revenue. They in fact hire in excess of 200 non-native people in addition to the native people who are working within those firms. The skills they've developed through their sawmills and forestry operations are now expanding into other forms of enterprise, for example, oriented strand board.

Even the skills that are existent in environmental management and business management are now being exported outside of Canada. So if you think of the Porter concept of competitiveness, first nations are part of that. They're helping Canada be part of the competitive edge, and the MLTC is exporting their technological skills into Central and South America with aboriginal groups there. I think it's quite remarkable.

Another example is Dogrib in the Northwest Territories, where through the partnership with Broken Hill Propietary and Ekati diamond mine, several hundred members of the Dogrib First Nation now have very well paying jobs with Ekati. In fact, we find women involved in non-traditional employment. They're the ones who are operating trucks that are as big as this room, and they took that training within the first nation at Dogrib.

They are now partnering with the new diamond mine that's about to be opened in the Northwest Territories. They're doing that with SNC-Lavalin Inc., who have helped them in a number of respects.

Quite quickly again, in Saskatchewan, at the Cameco uranium mine, fully 40% of the workforce is now aboriginal. I believe upward of 44% of the contracts they provide are to aboriginal enterprise. Those enterprises—I'm referring to the non-native enterprises—are partnering with their aboriginal partners to the extent that those aboriginal partners have extended their reach beyond the immediate area in which they live.

Finally—and I won't go on at any greater length—in Alberta, we have a particularly powerful combination arising out of Syncrude. Mr. Eric Newell, the president, has been particularly effective in drawing in a number of private sector firms to work ably with aboriginal business, even branching out as far as the forestry industry.

We have a situation where in places like Fort McKay, we're heading toward full employment. We have many individuals in the community earning $60,000 a year, and a number of individuals earning in excess of $100,000 a year. They're equal participants in the economy, as are other Canadians in that area.

• 1620

Finally, I would say that we also now see other forms of partnership: a corporate circle forming in Saskatchewan; the Manitoba Business Council, which is beginning to look for employment of aboriginal people; business partnerships in new ventures that might begin; and capital pools, which are very badly needed as well.

I think, Mr. Chair, that's the kind of information we can provide to you subsequently, and I think it's a very powerful indication of what can be done with the kinds of initiatives we have across the country.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much.

Mr. Robert Nault: I thought it would also be important for the committee to get Gordon to tell you, from the corporate side, how our accountability structure works between a first nation and the Government of Canada through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The one issue we are still grappling with is the issue of the audits themselves. As you know, a number of years ago the Supreme Court ruled that we were not able to release the consolidated audits to the general public because of the sensitivity of protecting third-party interests.

That's one of the concerns I have as a minister. Because of the Supreme Court ruling, which is called Montana, there is a perception by members of Parliament and the general public that first nations people or the department have something to hide. I have given the department an undertaking to find out how we can reposition ourselves, working with first nations, and we have a joint initiative going now to find a way to release the information that relates to government money, while protecting the rights of individuals and private businesses in those communities who have a right to have that information protected under law.

I hope to be able to deal with that in the next year, so that when Mr. Keddy or anybody else wants a copy of somebody's audit, he'll be able to just look on the web. It'll show that the relationship financially between the government and those first nations is indeed modern in its management structures and that all dollars that are sent to first nations are accounted for.

As I said in the House and as I've said to you many times, we're the most audited department in the government. We have some 800 first nations and organizations that we audit every single year, and we follow those audits up to see whether there are any financial difficulties and how we could play a role in building capacity to prepare these first nations to take on the governance they so desperately want to see in their communities.

So I just want Gordon to give you the technical side of how we do that, Mr. Chairman, because it's very important to put it on the record and remove the fallacy that somehow a first nation leader, its council, or members of its community can run off somehow with the government's money. In fact that is not the case at all, and I think it's important to have that laid out for you. I want to have Gordon put it on the record in detail for you here.

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. How long are we supposed to be speaking, for my information? How long did this last one take, and are we going to limit it so that everybody gets an opportunity?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Certainly everybody's going to get an opportunity.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I would like to know how long we're supposed to have, and how long this took, please.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Five minutes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: This was only five minutes?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): No, we start with five minutes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Well, I would like to know, is it five minutes for questions or five minutes for questions and answers?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Five minutes for questions and answers.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Well, that was about 15.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Your point of order has been answered.

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Chair, the point of order has been answered. You said five minutes. I will move that we extend the time so we can hear about that very important information. I address that to you as a motion.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I'm not going to waste too much time on this. If we extend the time, then I would expect the minister would stay until we had the same amount of time to hear the minister. The tradition is five minutes for questions and answers. It flows quickly. Everybody gets to ask their question, and the minister gets to answer. If we're going to listen to 15 minutes of answers for every two minutes of question, we're never going to get our questions asked.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Chairman, we'll waste a lot of time on my motion. I will withdraw it, because I know the information. I thought it would be of benefit—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm not arguing with that.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: —especially to those who question it every day of the week.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): I take the point of order, Mr. Konrad. I think what the minister has suggested and what we're going to hear about is something that all the members of this committee need to know and want to know. We will then continue with the normal course of events. Some of the Liberal members may not get a chance to ask a question, but there we are.

• 1625

I think this is important. I'm going to rule that it's important, and I'm going to ask Mr. Shanks to carry on.

Mr. Gordon Shanks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief.

All of the resources that flow from the Department of Indian Affairs to first nations flow through funding agreements. We have two types of agreements. We have multi-year agreements that you will have referred to as AFAs or FTAs, or Canada-first nations funding agreements—the recent version—or single-year agreements, which are CFAs.

All of these agreements contain terms and conditions that must be met. The terms and conditions outline the minimal program standards that have to be achieved with the resources. They outline the reporting requirements back to the government to demonstrate the achievement of the program standards. These are monitored—some reports on a monthly basis, others on an annual basis. They're tracked through a computer system, the transfer payment management system, which is a computerized system that's been in place for about 10 years. It's constantly upgraded so that we can add additional information to it.

Each of these agreements requires a consolidated audit to be provided 90 days after the end of the fiscal year. These audits are reviewed by department financial officers. They are reviewed with the first nation administration, using the auditor's instructions.

The intention of these audits is to review the financial health of the communities. Depending upon the financial health, the department will intervene on a variety of levels. Normally, the first level of intervention, if there is a financial issue, is to require what has been known as a remedial management plan, a financial recovery plan. Those financial recovery plans are prepared by the first nation administration in consultation with the department. If accepted, they are normally managed by the recipient, by the first nation in the first instance.

If the issue is more severe, it will be managed with a co-manager. The first nation would engage professional financial management assistance to manage it. In very severe circumstances, if it was determined that the first nation was unable to manage its finances and deliver the programs that it had contracted for, we would engage a third-party manager who would deliver the programs on behalf of the department.

As the minister indicated, the objective we have is to build capacity on a government-to-government basis. In addition to the audit and funding agreement requirements, we do a management assessment of each first nation. We now have 97% of those completed across the country.

The management assessments review the various aspects of governance and result in a management development plan, which then works on the gaps in capacity. We have resources through the Gathering Strength budget that we direct to the capacity needs of the first nations and in that way build the governance capacity and ensure accountability.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much.

Ms. Hardy.

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to add my welcome to the Forum for Young Canadians as well, some of whom I've seen have read your speech twice now since we've been sitting here.

The Canadian foreign affairs committee prepared a document on Canadian foreign policy for the north, and it's really clear in its objectives on economic development and sustainability in the north. In terms of that, I want to ask you what your position is on the support of the Arctic university and the Arctic Council's work on cleaning up toxic sites in the north. We certainly have more than our share of them.

Also, because the persistent organic pollutants, it's been shown, pool in the north and adversely affect northern residents far more than anywhere else, what kind of initiatives do you have in that area?

I'll list them all and then you can answer.

The other one I have is this. In light of the health problems that are a concern for the north, around children, around suicide, around fetal alcohol syndrome, and around high suicide rates, would you throw your support behind a Canadian centre for excellence for children in the north? That's an issue that's around right now.

Is it the practice of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to pay less than the minimum wage, depending on what area they're working in? I find that a very serious concern.

• 1630

When it comes to the issue of reconciliation, which you've brought up here, I certainly support the efforts, particularly in the area of negotiation rather than litigation. Where are we? If there are anywhere between 5,000 and 7,000 court cases against the department around residential schools, just what exactly is the liability? I was speaking to just the Anglican Church alone, who have $10 million to $15 million in assets, and they're facing hundreds of millions in damages around these issues. Is this whole area of past government policy going to bring us down in the department as well as the churches? Is it going to cause them to crumble? What efforts are being made in the relationship between the department and the churches and the department and the first nations to resolve things in the best interests of everybody, with the objective of helping the individual?

What is the department going to do for the first nations of Newfoundland around the Indian Act and the Human Rights Commission's report on their situation?

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman I will do my best to keep it short. It's hard when members ask very extensive questions, but I'll do my best.

The residential schools issue, as it relates to the legacy of sexual and physical abuse of children, is a very complex issue and one that in this government we take very seriously. With that in mind, we have been working with the churches, with some 12 pilots, to try to come up with out-of-court settlements with residential school victims. At this point in the process we have been able to settle some 400 cases out of court.

We certainly see that as a much more appropriate healing mechanism. I want it on record that it's not the intention of the Government of Canada to bankrupt any churches. We are just seeking a legal remedy, as you might imagine, to assure all participants in this legacy of the responsibilities that should be brought to bear on those who were involved. This is an issue that, as I said, we take very seriously. We are looking at it. It's an evolving file because every day, as I understand it, or every week, some 20 more cases of residential school victims come in. It's going to take us some time to work our way through the best processes and procedures that we might want to follow to deal with what we have indicated to you is our number one priority, which is the healing of the people themselves and the legalities of course that come with it.

I also want you to know that we are working very closely with the Innu. Is it the Innu or the Inuit that you are talking specifically about, from Newfoundland and Labrador?

Ms. Louise Hardy: Well, more the Mi'kmaq.

Mr. Robert Nault: The Mi'kmaq out of...?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Newfoundland.

Mr. Robert Nault: Out of Newfoundland? I'm not quite sure I know—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Conne River.

Mr. Robert Nault: What's the problem in Conne River? I thought they were one of the most—

Ms. Shirley Serafini (Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Conne River is doing quite well.

Mr. Robert Nault: —successful first nations in the Atlantic provinces.

Ms. Louise Hardy: The Mi'kmaq that I've been speaking to.... Well, I can talk to you more about it later.

Mr. Robert Nault: Okay. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, Louise. Maybe you could let me know. In talking to the member of Parliament from there, he seems to think they're doing quite well. I may want to have someone fill me in a little bit on—

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Zero unemployment.

Mr. Robert Nault: I thought there was zero unemployment in the community.

Anyway, on the issue of toxic waste, we presently have a remedial action plan dealing with toxic waste in the Yukon, and the territories as a whole have put significant resources in the regions to deal with that. As we speak, they are working on the individual hot spots, and will continue to do so until we've eradicated that particular problem, which has occurred because of issues of the past.

On the issue of economic development, which everyone in this room should know is what I consider to be the future direction of helping first nations look after themselves, I'm presently working very closely with Foreign Affairs and with our government to try to come up with some programs that we can put in place to help fast track economic development in the far north. There are some huge opportunities coming forward.

• 1635

One example is the gas pipeline coming out of the Mackenzie Delta. As you know, there's a big debate going on as to which pipeline is going to flow first—out of the Yukon or out of the Mackenzie Delta—but it's my view that we, the Government of Canada, have to be at the table with first nations in order to make sure that they are a participant and have an equity position in those resources.

We're working very hard internally to make sure that we have those resources available. Without announcing today completely where we're going, you will know in the next number of months that we will become a big participant in trying to build those economies.

Lastly, I'm not quite sure I know much about the Canadian centre of excellence for children, so I would defer that to a future date when I can get more information from you. When it comes to children, having two little ones myself, I'm always interested in how we can participate in helping children, but as I say, I don't know much about that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much.

Ms. Louise Hardy: And the minimum wage...?

Mr. Robert Nault: On the minimum wage, Mr. Chairman, is it suggested that the Government of Canada is paying less than minimum wage somewhere in the territories?

Ms. Louise Hardy: I'm asking if that is your practice.

Mr. Robert Nault: Well, it had certainly better not be. The Canada Labour Code specifically lays out what our minimum wage would be. If you do have examples of that, please give them to us and we'll see that it gets fixed.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Ms. Hardy.

Mr. Robert Nault: How am I doing, Mr. Chairman? Am I better for speed now?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Yes. You're doing much better. I give you an A for effort.

Mr. Keddy.

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

I'd also like to welcome the minister here. It's always nice to see him at committee. If you can find time to come back, Mr. Minister, we have a lot of questions for you.

And it is always a pleasure to see the members of the Forum for Young Canadians in the room.

I have several questions. First of all, I'd like to comment on your speech. It was wide-ranging, covered a broad group of topics, and sounded very good. If we could implement it tomorrow it would be great, but unfortunately that's just not how it works, and you're well aware of that.

I have some specific questions, mainly on Marshall and on accountability. Certainly you've referred to accountability and you've referred to your auditing system. I believe there are a couple of major flaws in the auditing system. Certainly one of those flaws is how the actual contracts are written. If you read most contracts written with aboriginal communities, they're extremely open-ended and don't have a lot of accountability written into them. You can talk to a number of first nations people who work for the department throughout Canada and on reserves in Canada and they'll tell you the same thing.

In regard to the issue over Marshall, I want to know your position here. I realize it's mainly an issue for the fisheries and oceans department, and they're certainly dealing with it. We already had—since 1993—an aboriginal fishing strategy in Atlantic Canada, which contributed 220 licences through buyouts, so there wasn't an increased effort to the 35 aboriginal communities in Atlantic Canada.

With Marshall, I would agree that it affirms an aboriginal treaty right, not rights, because it was only an issue over one right and that was the right to fish eels. I also agree that you made the right decision: to try to negotiate rather than settle it through the courts.

However, what is happening is that we have 220 licences through the AFS and we now have $160 million being spent. That brings us back to the accountability issue. You have a $400,000 salary for the Eskasoni chief. You have the Acadia Band chief, responsible for 200 people, making $130,000 a year, tax free.

Those types of issues, if you don't resolve them and answer them specifically, affect the accountability of every first nation in Atlantic Canada. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong: what matters is that the issue has to be addressed. I'm not quite sure that I see enough of the issue being addressed.

Mr. Robert Nault: Let me deal with the importance, and of course I beg to differ about—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, I would hope—

Mr. Robert Nault: —the perception that our accountability framework as it relates to agreements is so loose and open-ended—

• 1640

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Excuse me, Mr. Minister. I will interrupt you for just a moment to say goodbye to the Forum for Young Canadians, who, I assume, have another obligation to meet.

Mr. Robert Nault: A more important engagement, I understand.

Voices: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): You're welcome.

I'm sorry for the interruption.

Mr. Robert Nault: It was probably something I said, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Oh, no.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, on the whole issue of accountability, if the members of this committee have never seen our standard agreement, I would certainly be willing to send you a copy. It's very comprehensive. It lays out all the requirements. It will certainly give you an understanding of what is expected of first nations in order for them to access the resources the Government of Canada produces, of course, as you know, through Parliament. That is the first thing I think I would be prepared to do and not get too much into a difference of opinion—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would appreciate that.

Mr. Robert Nault: —as to what's happening.

Let me talk a little about the debate that's occurring in Eskasoni and Acadia. I think this is a good debate. I'm pleased that it's occurring.

I see it as a very positive initiative, for two reasons. One, it shows that democracy at the first nations is occurring. As a member of Parliament now going on my twelfth year and a representative of 51 first nations myself, I can tell you that 10 years ago this debate never occurred. There was no discussion in the public domain by individual first nations people as to whether they were pleased or not pleased with their leadership.

In order to continue to be transparent, which is what accountable governments need to do in a modern context, I want to inform Mr. Keddy and the committee that I have instructed the department to make sure that the audits include a breakdown of the salaries of all elected officials and their public servants. Now, the reason for that is that I'm not here to debate whether I think it's too much or not enough salary for people to make, because I believe, quite frankly, that it's a decision for the community to make with the information available to them.

In Eskasoni, as an example, there will be an election this fall. It's pretty obvious that people in Eskasoni are well aware of the salaries of the chief and council and the people that run the community as public servants. They will make the decision based on the information available to them.

It's my interest to make sure that first nations people, as a whole community, have access to those audits in order for them to know exactly what the financial situation of their community is. I believe that, doing this in a transparent way, the communities will make up their own minds.

I had a debate not too long ago with a particular individual. I asked a simple question: do you expect the Minister of Indian Affairs to set the wage structure for elected officials, and what do you think a chief is worth? The person came back and said to me that he thought it should be $40,000 or $50,000. Now, Mr. Chairman, as you know, I've been working very hard with my colleagues, as you have been, to educate first nations people. We now have 27,000 young people going to post-secondary education in this country. You know that when you get a degree in any particular area you can go out into the private sector and get a job that will probably pay you significantly more than $40,000 or $50,000.

The whole objective of getting good governance is to attract young people, to attract educated first nations people to run their communities. You would expect that they would be paid compensation that would be equal to what someone could make somewhere else. So I would hope people would recognize that if you're going to attract the kind of people that would run a multimillion dollar corporation, because these communities, as you know.... Eskasoni is transferred, by the government alone, some $23 million a year, and it would be certainly prudent for us, as governments, to make sure that the best and most capable individuals are running those communities. That's what capacity building is all about.

So I would have a very difficult time intervening in how the community makes decisions on what its politicians should be paid and how they should be compensated for the job they do.

• 1645

I'll tell you what I prefer to see happen. What I've said to the press, and what I say to you here today, is that as long as everyone in the community is aware of what their salaries are—they've been passed by law through the council—they can then decide for themselves, this fall, whether they think the chief is worth what he is getting paid. I expect that will happen.

On Marshall, I can't comment too much on what my colleague Mr. Dhaliwal is doing, except to say that we are also involved in what we call the larger Marshall picture of trying to help first nations people create an economy, and I would just use one example.

The first nations people in Atlantic Canada, as is the case with Atlantic Canada in general, are the poorest first nations people of all the country as a whole. As I've said to you publicly and will repeat again, some 90%—I think 93% is the exact number of people—who live on reserves are on welfare in Atlantic Canada. It's our hope that we can improve on that number through being involved in practical solutions to creating an economy, including extending and improving their reserve boundaries, and working with the provinces in the Atlantic Canada.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Do I have a minute?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): You've only had nine minutes and a half. We'll get back to you.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I tried to go quickly.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): You did well.

Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for a clear, precise, and interesting presentation. I'm glad to know becoming a minister didn't change you. You're straightforward, you're a straight shooter, a bit of a street fighter, and I hope you never change.

Mr. Minister, you mentioned in your presentation that much work has been done and that the fruit of our labour is not necessarily in appearance. This committee especially has been working extremely hard in the last number of years, and I'll give the example of the Indian Act.

This committee—and the chair happened to be a member of it, along with me—did address the issue of the Indian Act. It had passed second reading, it came to committee, it went back to the House, and then we were faced with an election, so it died. If I remember correctly, there were over a hundred clauses in that bill. I remember sitting—and I'm sure our chair pro tem remembers sitting—from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. day after day, hearing witnesses. Serious work and a serious job was done on this bill.

There is a need to modernize that bill. Everyone agrees about that. My political analysis is that we don't have time to do it before the next election, and that is unfortunate.

I'll get to my question for you, Mr. Minister, because I know you're very creative and innovative. Would you be innovative and, unlike most cabinet ministers, address the same issue a number of times? By this, I mean that I believe departments and ministers, if they're going to tackle a difficult job, like to do it all so that they don't have to come back to it.

There are a number of clauses in the Indian Act that almost everyone agrees on. There are some that are very controversial, and there are many that are redundant. Could we not introduce a bill soon on the clauses that, from our work, you can know what Canadians agree on? By that I mean both first nations and other Canadians. Could we not introduce a bill at least to address those clauses and, at the same time, address the clauses that are redundant? This work should be able to be done in a matter of very little House time, and we can then address the more controversial clauses afterwards.

If we don't do it this way, I don't believe we'll do anything before the next election, and that would be sad. Personally, I'm interested in making this act better so that it can serve these communities better, but I'm not interested in redoing all the work that we have done, knowing that it's not going to go anywhere. So I ask you if can we get some of the work done before the next election.

• 1650

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to Mr. Bonin, because I think he has a significant amount of experience in the Indian Affairs portfolio, as you know.

It's pretty obvious to those of us who have been around for a while that the amending of the Indian Act has bedevilled a lot of ministers since 1951. It's our intention, of course—it has been mine since I first became the minister—in consultation with the aboriginal leadership across the country, to ask some specific questions.

One, is it appropriate to come in with amendments to the Indian Act in a complete, wholesome fashion that would include all the major changes? For the sake of argument, there would then be the same problem as we had with the Charlottetown accord. You'll find that somebody disagrees with something in the changes, and then we get into a political fight out there with our partners. The fact is that we've been trying to build that trust up, and that would not be very helpful to us. So I've asked the question of the leadership across the country in the last number of months about how we would approach this.

The second issue, which is equally important and is a process issue, is how we consult with first nations people in a way that will not take us literally years and millions of dollars. In the time that I have been here, I'll say I have found that the consultation costs to deal with issues with first nations are very expensive. I've been trying to find a more modern process of dealing with consultations, so that we can move much more quickly in areas where we think we have some agreement.

With that in mind, we have a joint working group with the AFN. With the AFN, we're looking at two issues and two areas.

One is the amendments to the Indian Act that are regulatory in nature. We don't even have to go the House of Commons to change those, to deal with them, and those are numerous. There are numerous changes that can be of a regulatory nature, and we hope to roll those out by summer.

There are also the issues that deal with the Indian Act that need to have legislation and legislative change. This might have to be confirmed, but I have asked the leadership this question: would you prefer that we had changes to the Indian Act done in specific areas, as we did with the First Nations Land Management Act, Bill C-49? It was specific, and I'll give you one example.

I have a very strong interest in a first nations elections act that would modernize the elections system for first nations, would remove the role of Indian Affairs, and would give the role of running and monitoring elections to Elections Canada. That's my preference, and I have had a significant amount of discussion about that because of Corbière. There seems to be a view from the leadership that this is the kind of work we can move forward with in a very specific way in order to get improvements in the short term, without having to open the complete act and get into every single piece of the act.

It has become the view of first nations people that the act was so interwoven that if you change one section of it, you pretty well have to change it all. That becomes very complicated, so the way to proceed that seems to be acceptable is that we move one piece of legislation at a time in order to deal with issues that need to be modernized within the act and remove those impediments to our relationship. I think it's that area in which we will be coming to you in the not-too-distant future, because we think we can be successful on it. Hopefully it will be before the next election. I don't know when the election is because the Prime Minister hasn't told us yet, but I assume it will be within the next year or so.

So I would leave that as my comments to Mr. Bonin, Mr. Chairman. I agree with him that in order for us to be successful, we have to start being a little more aggressive about completing our work. The letter that I sent you was all part and parcel of that. If you notice the letter that was sent by the minister, it was just to give you some food for thought about areas that I am very interested in looking at and in which I would be very interested in having the committee help me in terms of doing some consultation.

One of those areas is women's issues. Aboriginal women are coming forward daily, saying they want to see a piece of legislation to make their roles in the community whole, because there is no protection for aboriginal women within the Indian Act. I think that's important work that you can do, and it's a role that I think aboriginal women would be very pleased to see you take. I just use that as one example, as there are many others.

• 1655

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We now go back over here to Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome you back to the committee. It's nice to see you again and to engage in discussions with you.

I refer to your opening remarks and to the letter you sent to the committee. I thought, oh boy, for the first time we're on the same side of the issue. We're looking at accountability, but unfortunately I didn't even see the word written in your speech notes there.

On page 2 of your letter to the committee you say “In large part, the answers to these complex questions must come from aboriginal people themselves”. You explain those questions in the overleaf. Last night in the House of Commons we had a vote on a native ombudsman recommendation that really arose out of the First Nations Accountability Coalition. That contains a number of recommendations. The first thing I'm going to do is table this report so that the committee has a copy of it. I will give that to the clerk of the committee and then proceed to my comments.

One of the things that occurs to me is that if we're going to talk accountability, one of the things about accountable government is that it's predictable. In other words, the people who are governed by it know what the rules are. It doesn't seem to me that there is any defined government for first nations. If I moved to a first nation, I wouldn't know how it was governed. If a person who lives on a reserve moves to another reserve, he may be governed differently. They may have different kinds of elections, different rules and regulations for how the thing operates.

Chiefs and councils exercise economic power. They exercise administrative power. They exercise legislative power. They have some say over elections, justice, a whole range of issues. They are not only politicians, although we call them politicians; in some sense, as you mentioned yourself, they operate as executives, and consequently they have these high salaries and expense accounts. They travel here, there, and everywhere on band money.

I have spoken to quite a number of aboriginal people, including newspaper people, who are very interested in the study that could be undertaken here on accountability. The concentration of power in the hands of a few seems to be one of the problems.

In Saskatchewan now I'm looking at a motion that may make a casino in the city of Prince Albert, a reserve. That has implications for taxation and unionization. In a sense it means that the people on the reserve will not be able to unionize. That is pretty much unacceptable where I'm concerned and where a lot of people are concerned. As I said, it has implications for taxation. How is taxation going to be handled?

I wonder if you have any ideas on that, if you have any background. What are your thoughts on the concentration of power in the hands of chiefs and councils? I think a lot of people in Canada would like to know.

Mr. Robert Nault: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me see if I can bring some certainty to the issue Mr. Konrad dealt with in his opening comments about my letter.

I know there are many committee members here who have a view that first nation leaders and their community public servants are unaccountable. I don't have that view. I have sent you a letter saying I welcome the opportunity for the committee to review the whole issue of the accountability structures and how governance works in first nations.

I am of the view that Mr. Konrad doesn't know how governance works in first nations. There are a number of different models that exist in Canada today. I would be very willing and very excited to see our officials and first nation leaders come to this committee and explain how their custom laws work and how their traditional practices are arrived at in the context of melding the cultural and traditional practice of first nations with a modern governance structure.

• 1700

In fact, that's the exact debate we're having now internally with our working groups with first nations. We're trying to come up with a new, modern Indian Act that relates to governance and how it would be approached. So I have no difficulty with that. I have every confidence in the abilities of the officials to come before you to explain how our agreements with first nations are accountable to the taxpayer of Canada.

In order to take it out of the back rooms, where people can continue to say in the public domain that the majority of first nation leaders are corrupt, which I am so totally frustrated with.... I'm appalled that people can make statements like that without proof. They are putting people in a category that suggests they can't run their own affairs. I think that is doing a disservice to the agenda of this government and to the agenda of first nation people overall. That's why I welcome the Reform Party and any other party that wants to study accountability.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That's the Canadian Alliance.

Mr. Robert Nault: I think that's exactly where we're headed and where I'd like to see it go. By all means, feel free to invite all the national leadership to explain to you how their governance structure works in their community and to explain to you the cultural importance of their tradition and their clan structure and how it can be melded to a modern governance structure, how that should be done and will be done.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Couldn't he answer my questions?

Mr. Robert Nault: Well, you're not allowed to, you see. You only get five minutes, Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Oh, I'm sorry.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): No, I'm sorry. Did I cut you off?

Mr. Robert Nault: You did, Mr. Chairman. I was going to answer the rest of the questions for Mr. Konrad.

I just want you to know that as well as creating a first nation economy.... The reason I mentioned Harvard in the letter is that there have been significant studies done in the United States about how good governance, fiscal relationships, modern governance, and creating first nation economies are linked. For us to be successful in creating a first nation economy, we also have to have the governance structures in place and the capacity for those governance structures to be implemented. That's where the fiscal relationship occurs.

Mr. Konrad may not be aware of this, but there are some major works going on in Saskatchewan at a fiscal table at the tripartite negotiations between the Province of Saskatchewan, the Government of Canada, and the FSIN. Part of that is the fiscal relationship table of how we will interact as governments once we have the self-government agreement in place, which includes taxation, which includes resource sharing. We'd be very willing to share that information with you, because I'm sure it would be helpful to the committee to understand where the Province of Saskatchewan is going with this.

Of course, in the end, the majority of the cases being in their jurisdiction, the Province of Saskatchewan will have to agree to the new fiscal relationship, as we are working on in the territories, as we are working on in Quebec, as we are working on in Atlantic Canada with all the self-government agreements. Those are new fiscal relationships.

I would be very pleased to let Mr. Konrad have the information because it is for public consumption at these tables. There are some very good works going on in Saskatchewan, which leads the country in relationships with first nations. I'm sure Mr. Konrad would be very supportive of that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to welcome the Minister of Indian Affairs and I would like to thank him for his many visits in the field to meet the Aboriginals and the Inuit. Last week, you went to Kuujjuaq and you took part in the annual Makivik meeting. I know that the people there much appreciated your visit.

There are many problems in Nunavik. The Inuit pay income tax to the federal and provincial governments as well as school and municipal taxes the same as any other citizen in southern Canada. Both I and they are proud of that.

We know that many Inuit suffer from tuberculosis and diabetes. The Inuit also told you about their problems with housing in Nunavik and you intervened.

• 1705

When the federal government subsidizes housing programs in Nunavik, there are major economic trickledowns in the South, because just like milk and bread, all the material needed including windows and nails will have to come up from the South. These programs contribute in a major way to our Canadian and Quebec economies. The people are waiting for a signal from you and I know you're a minister of action. Could you give us any information on the new housing plan that is soon to be announced?

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: I hate it when you make me announce things that were only to be announced next week.

One of the things I used as an example in my comments was the issue of housing, the poor housing conditions. It's true that I've been working very closely with Makivik and with the people in Nunavik, with Mr. St-Julien, who tried to come up with a housing package in partnership with the community and, of course, the Province of Quebec. I think we've made some progress and we will be successful in dealing with some of the major impediments to housing for that region.

I also want to you to know that if we don't have good shelter for first nations people, it has dramatic impacts on health; it has significant effects on children.

I was in a community in northern Manitoba.... It is true I spend a lot of time on the road, because I like to go to communities, and I would recommend to all members that they spend as much time in the first nations communities as they possibly can. By being in those communities, you'll get a very different view of the work that's going on.

What I found in some communities is that there is a huge housing backlog. I've asked the department to work with us to see if we can come up with some best practices and to work with the financial institutions in the private sector.

We are presently working with Treaty 7 in Alberta, as a whole treaty area, with one of the major financial institutions to put together a comprehensive package that will meet the needs and play catch-up and deal with the backlog of housing for that area. We are looking at those kinds of initiatives and best practices we can use, and if that works with Treaty 7, use it in other areas so that we can meet the needs of the people in the long run.

But I want to go back to my focus today. This is all for nought with a population explosion, when you know over 60% of all first nation people are under the age of 25. This is all for nought if we don't create an economy, if we don't let first nation people be part of the economy. The only way we can succeed in building a new relationship is if we create the employment. We cannot continue to have 70% or 80% unemployment in first nations and say, well, that's acceptable.

I can answer directly the question Mr. Scott asked at the beginning. The reason the budget has continued to increase is that the population has grown in leaps and bounds. If we don't create an economy for first nations, our budget will double again in the next ten years. It's a reality of demographics.

My role as the minister, and that of the Parliament of Canada as the fiduciary for first nation people, and that of the crown is that we are to deliver what we call “provincial-like services” to first nations. It is a misconception of Canadians that somehow provinces and municipalities have a role in funding first nations. They don't. In the majority of cases, the federal government funds first nations. We have the role of supplying provincial-like services. Sewer and water, housing, all the social services that anybody would get from the Province of Ontario, where you and I come from, we, as the Government of Canada, supply to those people.

Quite frankly, I don't think the budget is all that large per capita. I think it's a reasonable amount of money, and there should be more—if I had my way. I am certainly working very hard with the Minister of Finance not to give it all back to tax cuts but to help us build an economy for first nation people.

So I give you that because, really, if we don't move in that direction, we'll be saddled with some very difficult issues in the not-too-distant future.

• 1710

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I'd like to have a last brief question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: In the last federal budget, it said that within a few months, after discussions have been held, the Canada- Quebec infrastructure program will be implemented. We know that these infrastructure programs implemented by the federal and provincial levels are mainly concerned with building roads and highways.

However, we know that up North, in Nunavik, Nunavut, outlying areas and many ridings, including yours, these programs aren't enough to pay for road building.

I was wondering if some of the monies earmarked for that could be refocussed on building sports infrastructures which would help us introduce our young people in outlying areas to sports. Could we divide the budget into three equal parts?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Minister.

Mr. Robert Nault: I have to inform you that the policies and the direction of the infrastructure program as announced in the last budget has not been completely fleshed out. We are still in negotiations and discussions with the provinces, the territories, and first nation people.

I can tell you that a significant amount of money from the infrastructure program will go to first nations, but at this point we have not made the final decisions as to what particular areas the government and first nations people agree we should focus on. As you know, there are many different pressures, from infrastructure like roads to issues like housing. The list would go on and on, and we could spend a number of hours talking about those particular areas and priorities, but at this point I couldn't give you those specifics, because we haven't arrived at those conclusions yet.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. St-Julien.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have 15 minutes left until the normal closing time.

I thank you, Mr. St-Julien. You have had the smallest amount of time and you've waited the longest, but Mr. Fournier has a small question and then we'll go back over to Nancy. If we can get everybody else in, it will be a matter of cooperation.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I'm one of those who believe that when the Minister comes before us, we should have him here longer so he could answer all our questions and concerns. I don't want to blame him for not being able to give us more time because I know his schedule is already very heavy.

I would like to thank you, sir, for your good explanations in reply to my questions. Your answers to my colleagues' questions also served to enlighten me further.

My riding has nine Aboriginal communities all the way from Kégaska to Blanc-Sablon, an area where there are no roads; I had to go there on a snowmobile. My visit was written up in the press and this was quite appreciated both by my colleagues and my own party and the people in my riding.

Mr. Chairman, just as you and the members of the committee can testify, Claude Bachand and the Bloc Québécois that I represent, have shown a lot of co-operation and supported all the undertakings of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as well as the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. We have voted in favour of all the bills concerning Nunavut, Nunavik and the Nisga'a in BC.

I'd like to take the opportunity of your being here, Minister, to make a request. The communities in my riding tell me that I'm their elected representative and that, although they recognize the work I've done to settle the problems concerning Nunavut, Nunavik and the Nisga'a, many problems still persist and I won't describe them because it would take too long.

• 1715

In my town, in my riding, there's a Montagnais community confronting a serious problem which, if we don't try to settle it, just might explode and degenerate in a crisis like the one we had in Oka. I've met Chief Rosario Pinette and his band council who were very welcoming. They honoured me when they said I was the member who had met the Natives most often and that they appreciated the way I wanted to solve their problems. Ms. Lorraine Brouillet, who is the intergovernmental relations advisor in the Quebec region also came to Sept-Îles.

Minister, as a member of Parliament, I'm asking you to meet Mr. Bachand and me to discuss this serious problem that deserves our attention. My community appreciates you very much and would appreciate you even more if you could help it. It would also appreciate the efforts made by its MP and my political party if we could work together. The community would support us and it recognizes that we have a legitimate mandate to work for our population.

Minister, it would take too long to explain the details of this problem. I would prefer to meet with you to discuss this matter specifically together with, if it were possible, Chief Rosario Pinette and one or two of his band councillors who could come here. If we show we're ready to listen to them and settle their problems, a great step forward will have been taken.

I'm quite happy to have had the opportunity to make this request. I'm aware of the workload a simple MP, who is a bit like a simple soldier, has to deal with and I can imagine what a minister's must be like. Please know that we would greatly appreciate it were you to accept to be a party to this meeting. Thank you, Minister.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Monsieur Fournier.

I think that demands a very simple answer.

Mr. Robert Nault: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you.

Mr. Robert Nault: It is a simple answer. The only discussion we should have with Mr. Fournier is whether we do it here or whether we do it in the community.

I happen to have, as you know, Mr. Chairman, 27 first nations that are isolated, very similar to Mr. Fournier's, and I do have a lot of understanding of what he's talking about. I have spent a lot of time in float planes and skidoos myself, and would be very interested in going to the community where the people live.

I'm of the view that we are scheduled to be there some time in the early summer, already, to head that way. So I think we can make arrangements to do it. If it's necessary to meet earlier, I'm prepared to do that as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Nancy.

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

First of all, I want to say that I take great offence to some of the general statements Mr. Konrad has made about a council and chief being elected and being the only ones responsible. I fail to see the difference between that and any municipality. Take the greater Toronto area, where one mayor and a few councillors handle all the money for all of greater Toronto area. So I just don't see the point in making general statements like that, that would make it any different from any other elected council across this country. Those very types of comments make it very difficult for good working relationships, because we end up having to be on the defensive side all the time to explain something that I feel we shouldn't have to explain.

To get to my question, a bit of it was touched on by Mr. St-Julien. Of course housing is a topic we talk about at great length, because it's a basic need, and unless we solve that issue then it's very difficult to be proactive on all the other issues.

I know there's been pressure from some of our Inuit organizations for an Inuit action plan. I guess I would like to get some indication on whether there would be any move on Inuit-specific housing programs, because we seem to be falling in the cracks. I know it's a territorial responsibility, but when you also have on-reserve housing programs, it's a very difficult thing to explain to Inuit people.

• 1720

The people of Nunavut have also been asking for an economic development agreement and whether there's any move on that at all. Specifically, with the Inuit action plan there has been a request for trying to be also under the umbrella of aboriginal people. But being two very different cultures, it's very difficult to run the same federal programs for two groups of people and try to have the same criteria for those.

Those are my questions. Thank you.

Mr. Robert Nault: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that I very much agree with her opening comments that it's not helpful when people make broad statements. I have made it very clear that I think the biggest and most important discussion and work we can do in the short term is to educate people who have preconceived notions of how things work.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have any fear of studying accountability at this committee. I just think that is a perception that certain members have tried to perpetuate. We have to sit at this table and have aboriginal leaders look the opposition and every member of Parliament in the eye and say “Here's what I do in my community every day of the week, 24 hours a day. When I have a suicide, I get up in the middle of the night and I go and work with those people. Do you do that as a mayor or member of council? I don't think so.”

When there are particular issues of people in the isolated communities we've dealt with where people's lives are lost and the chief and council and community members have to go out searching for these bodies of their loved ones for days on end, is that what members of Parliament and municipal councillors do? I don't think so.

I'm very excited about the opportunity to see this committee have people in front of them and tell them the real story. I hope we can get a full packed house and even get you in front of the TV room so that the rest of the country can watch this in action, because it's ridiculous to continue to perpetuate that somehow first nations leadership are a bunch of crooks who don't know how to do their job. That's complete nonsense, and the sooner we deal with that head-on, the happier I'm going to be, because quite frankly it's a disservice to first nation people.

I have very strong views, as does my colleague, about how often I hear this comment without any factual backing. We can get the odd report of complaints....

The other issue is this, Mr. Chairman, and I think we need to deal with this head-on as well. Whenever there's dissension in a community, it's suggested that the community's in a crisis. You know we have a number of political parties in our system, and we disagree with each other strongly on particular views. Is Canada in a crisis because I have a very different view from the Tories or the Alliance or the NDP? I don't think so. But if a first nation has political opposition, they supposedly have problems in their community. That's democracy in action, Mr. Chairman. I think that's a very positive thing.

If there are people in the Nass Valley and through the Nisga'a treaty area who disagree with the treaty, well, I'm not surprised. Do you think they would get 100% concurrence? That would be an unbelievable situation to say that 100% agree with something. I've never met that. In our party, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't happen either.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): It's totally unnatural.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: One comment. I did not indicate anything about corruption when I spoke, and I take exception to the continued attacks along that line. I pointed out what is an absolute fact: that Indian communities do own businesses and chiefs and councils run the things. That is not true of Toronto. That is not true of any municipality in this country that is not an Indian government.

Thank you.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, why I think it's important for you do some work on this particular file is the issue of.... I'll give you another example. Members of the opposition have been saying for a number of months that if a first nation has a deficit or debt, that's perceived to be bad management. Now, I can give you a list of municipalities right across the nation that have deficits and debt.

• 1725

For example, Edmonton has a very large debt. Do we go running around saying that the council in Edmonton are completely mismanaging the affairs of the community? No, not without getting a little more information as to why that deficit and debt were accumulated. Was it because they had a major infrastructure program and went out and put some of their money in, and borrowed some from the banks, to build an arena, for example, in their community, which we don't fund as a government?

So now they have a deficit and will deal with the debt as they clean up their deficit. Why would that be perceived to be bad management, Mr. Chairman? It's happening all across governments as we speak. That's the kind of issue I think we need to have and debate in this committee. I think it would be a very positive one.

On the economic development that my colleague asked me about, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we have suggested as a government that there would be an economic development proposal put together for the territories, and I'm still very confident that this in fact will happen and we're working very hard on it.

I am very supportive of an Inuit action plan, because I see the Inuit as unique, and they will not be put in the big package of all aboriginal people or all first nations because Inuit people have some unique cultural needs. So on the Inuit action plan, we're working very closely with the Inuit organizations. We hope to be able to give the committee more information as we get closer to arriving at a consensus as to what that action plan will look like.

So I'll cut it off there.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Louise, you have the last chance.

Ms. Louise Hardy: Thank you. I'll just let you know the details of the pay below minimum wage. The department hires home care workers for adult care. The Yukon government pays $16.35 for the same role. The department was paying less than minimum wage for that job. When the woman asked to be paid minimum wage, they took over a year and they didn't pay it retroactively.

That's why I asked about this. I'd like it if you would look and make sure those people have been paid and that all of them are being paid at least minimum wage and that it be done retroactively.

One last thing is that in relation to Gathering Strength and the change in relationship with first nations, the royal commission said the department wasn't capable of doing that. There are other documents that say this. So what specifically has the department done to change how they function to make it possible to make the changes and build the relationship of trust that you want, particularly in light of policing and what went on in Saskatoon?

Mr. Robert Nault: One of the things that Gathering Strength gave us was an opportunity to build capacity. We have put together a number of joint initiatives with the first nations, including the Yukon, to build capacity so that governance, which is a matter of capacity, a matter of administration, a matter of expertise, will be put on the ground. So I think capacity building is one the main obvious changes by which Gathering Strength has allowed us to build those new governing structures.

Mr. Chairman, I will make sure we look into the issue Louise talked about. I have every confidence that if this is the case it will be fixed, because it's obviously inappropriate.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted you to know that the Aboriginal Healing Foundation's annual report is on the website. So I thought it would be good for everyone to know what the website number is when you're looking for all these audits that interest you extensively. This is where you'll find them. It's www.aahf.ca., if I'm not mistaken. I'll pass it around. Help yourselves.

In response to Mr. Bonin's comments, I'm very much upfront and I'm not afraid to give you any information you want, including all the audits. That's the whole objective. So any time you want an audit, let me know.

There seems to be, Mr. Chairman, a perception and an interest by the opposition and the media to seek information through access to information. You might do yourself a lot of help and good by just writing me a letter and asking me first. It might come back to you a lot quicker than going through access to information.

I understand there are a number of access to information requests that I'm not supposed to know about but people tell me about. So why don't you just write me a letter and say, this is what I'd like to know. If I can do it legally, I'll send you the information. It would be a lot easier than your chasing this thing like a dog chasing its tail. It seems a lot sexier, I suppose, when you go into the House of Commons and say I got this through access to information, but it's certainly too difficult because it takes a long time to develop.

• 1730

Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that this is my first visit to the committee since Nisga'a, but on the estimates. I hope it's not my last opportunity to come and see you and talk about the issues that are important to first nations people and the Inuit and aboriginal people in general.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I have a point of clarification.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Yes.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Chair, I'd like to register a point of clarification. One of our colleagues on this committee has cast aspersions on chiefs by saying that they travel with credit cards. I don't think this should be left at that. As a former school trustee and municipal councillor, I can tell you with assurance that mayors, administrators, and department heads have credit cards. Senators have credit cards. The reason they use credit cards is because it's the most accountable way to spend public money.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Minister, on behalf of my role as chairman this afternoon, I want to thank you very much. You've been very generous with your answers.

I want to apologize to my good friend Mr. Keddy, who desperately wants you to answer another question, but I'm not going to allow it because you're five minutes over your time now. And if he wants to argue with me, Mr. Minister, he took more time than anyone else but Mr. Fournier in the first round. Therefore, Mr. Minister, we will invite you back.

The meeting is adjourned.