AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 9, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.))

Mr. Nault

Á

1110

Á

1115

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Nault

Á

1130

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Richard Marceau

Á

1135

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Robert Nault

Á

1140

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Robert Nault

Á

1145

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, Ind. Cons.)

Á

1150

Mr. Robert Nault

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Robert Nault

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Nault

Â

1210

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Nault

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Robert Nault

Â

1220

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Nault

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Robert Nault

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Â

1235

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Â

1240

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Robert Nault

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Â

1245

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Larry Bagnell

Â

1250

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Nault

Â

1255

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 050

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 9, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order, pursuant to the order of reference of the House dated February 27, 2001, main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25, 30, 35, 40, and 45 under Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

    As per a request from members, we are here to deal with the estimates. We are honoured and pleased to have with us the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Honourable Robert Nault, accompanied by the assistant deputy minister of corporate services, Caroline Davis.

    Mr. Minister, I invite you to make a presentation. We have this room until 1 p.m. With Natural Resources, our meeting lasted about an hour and a half, so I expect probably the same thing.

    After your presentation we will open it up to questions. The rule of this committee is if we determine the first round will be seven minutes, it will be seven minutes for the question and the answer. There may be occasions when you will not be able to answer because the question will take the full time, but you will always be able to sneak it into the next answer or your closing remarks. You will have the last word.

    I invite you to begin, Mr. Minister.

    Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before this committee. I welcome this opportunity to bring committee members up to date on our department's achievements and our plans for progress in the coming year. I want to say from the outset that I expect this year will probably be the busiest of your committee's tenure, so I welcome the opportunity to inform you of what those initiatives will be.

    As is my usual practice, I will give the committee my prepared text remarks. You're obviously interested in asking questions, and I thank you for that.

    A series of priorities guides the work of my department, including, as I'm sure you've all heard, first nations governance, economic development, education, social programs, claims and self-government, and northern development. My department, in partnership with first nations, Inuit, and northern people, is taking a practical, balanced, and integrated approach to addressing the day-to-day concerns and challenges facing individuals and communities. This partnership means we, the Government of Canada, and first nations, Inuit, and northern people have a shared commitment to ensure that basic needs are met for jobs, health, education, housing, and infrastructure.

    As many of you know, the aboriginal population is growing at a rate faster than the Canadian population as a whole. In an attempt to meet the growing demand for basic services such as housing, education, and community infrastructure, overall funding for Indian and Inuit programming, excluding claims, has increased by approximately 5%.

    There are success stories to be told, as more first nations exercise control over programs and services, as social conditions on reserves improve, and as education levels rise. These improvements show clearly that the Government of Canada and our partners are beginning to see some real success. No one would argue that our work is finished, but I think even our harshest critics would admit that we are moving forward. As the 2002-2003 report on plans and priorities makes clear, we are determined to accomplish even more in the months ahead.

    All of our initiatives, from housing, to jobs, to infrastructure--those bread-and-butter issues--are aimed at removing roadblocks to economic progress and reducing poverty. We still have some distance to go, but let me highlight a few achievements in what has been an outstanding year for our department and our government.

    One of the most important developments has been boosting our investments in first nations and Inuit economic development from $25 million to more than $120 million in less than two years. This has leveraged in excess of $400 million in other forms of equity and conventional debt financing. The corresponding economic activity translates into real change and a real difference in the quality of life for aboriginal people.

    In addition to this economic activity, aboriginal entrepreneurship is on the rise and is growing at twice the Canadian average. According to Aboriginal Business Canada, there are now more than 25,000 aboriginal businesses across the country. We are seeing a new wave of entrepreneurship, with aboriginal people developing new products, services, and ideas and bringing them to market.

    Canadian business leaders are also discovering the enormous potential of aboriginal people, not only as potential markets, but also as employees, partners, and associates in joint ventures.

    A prime example is Membertou First Nation. I recently joined the community to announce that the band government had become the first to be ISO-certified. Here's what Chief Terry Paul had to say about the rebirth of his community:

The community of Membertou is enjoying the benefits of operating good government with good business sense. With the assistance of my fellow counsellors and their capable staff, we decided not too long ago to say enough is enough. We do not want to continue living in a manner that diminishes who we are as a Mi'kmaq community. We want to be recognized and remembered the way the Mi'kmaq nation once was. Strong, powerful, and prosperous. And, most importantly, good to its people.

    Mr. Chairman, this community is concerned about their future, concerned in a good way, and making sure that youth have opportunities ahead and a bright future. The aboriginal population, as you know, is young and growing, with close to 50% of first nations people under the age of 25. This means that there will be a profound demographic transformation over the next 10 years. It will have far-reaching implications for the role of aboriginal people in the economic growth of this country.

    That's why we cannot wait to address practical bread-and-butter issues like education. Education is a major component of success among children and youth, more than for any other segment of the aboriginal population. Since first nations took increased control of their children's education, the number of first nations students funded by INAC and enrolled in post-secondary schools has doubled from 14,000 to about 28,000 students. But we are still concerned--and I think we have a right to be--about the low rate of high school graduation, and in the next several months we must find ways to improve in this area.

    Twenty years ago there were only several hundred first nations or Inuit individuals with post-secondary degrees. Now there are over 30,000 on-reserve first nations and Inuit degree holders, with more enrolling and graduating all the time. These individuals and those who follow in their footsteps are the engineers of their communities and are forging the way ahead. Governments and the investors who partner with first nations will certainly see the benefits of these investments.

    The other two key bread-and-butter issues are housing and water. They are one of the most direct partnerships between the Government of Canada and first nations leadership and one of the most challenging we face together. We co-fund these projects, and first nations are directly responsible for maintaining infrastructure. While both we and our partners agree that there is still a lot to do, we also agree that there has been some progress.

    In just five years, from March 1996 to 2001, the number of houses on reserves not requiring any renovations or replacement increased from 50% to 57%. In the same period 14,800 new housing units were built, 2,150 built in 2000-2001 alone. This investment in housing has increased the total number of homes on reserve from 78,200 to 89,900 as of March 31, 2001. And Mr. Chairman, to further support our commitment for first nations housing on reserve, we have committed $200 million over the next five years in addition to the $138 million already provided annually.

    Ensuring safe and clean drinking water in first nations communities is another top priority. Given the challenges of the shared responsibility with each community, we have recently completed a nationwide inventory of infrastructure. A national action plan is being finalized by the department to ensure safe and clean water supplies in first nations communities across the country.

    Since 1995 INAC has committed over $500 million to address the urgent need for the upgrade and expansion of water and sewer services in first nations communities. This, Mr. Chairman, is in addition to the $100 million to $125 million normally allocated for water and sewer projects annually and the approximately $40 million annually for the operation and maintenance of water and sewer facilities.

    In the past year and a half, the department has allocated additional funding to ensure that all operators have access to basic training for the operation of water and waste water facilities. But funding, Mr. Chairman, is only half the solution, and we see a growing understanding of this issue among first nations people, their leaders, and the Government of Canada.

Á  (1110)  

    In a recent Ekos public opinion survey, first nations people told us that they want to improve the quality of life on reserve, and like most Canadians, they want government to focus on day-to-day issues like education and health care, and particularly those that affect their children. They also make a clear link between good governance and improving social conditions. Seventy-one percent agreed that with better tools for governance, community conditions could improve. Consistent with that finding, 83% agree with the statement that aboriginal people need to do more to help themselves and they want tools to do that.

    In a nutshell, first nations people understand that re-establishing authorities, money, and jurisdiction are only half the puzzle. We must ensure that the structures are in place to support the weight of re-established powers and authorities. That's why we are moving ahead with the first nations governance legislation and other initiatives aimed at improving governance, creating stability, and increasing opportunities for self-reliance.

    The first nations governance initiative is designed to provide first nations with the tools missing from the Indian Act and pave the way for greater self-reliance, economic development, and hope among first nations communities. This is very much in line with the findings from the Ekos poll, where 75% of first nations people wanted to change the act, while only 13% wanted it scrapped entirely. Interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, fully 67% said that ordinary first nations members should have a voice in how the act is changed.

    The governance initiative is not intended to replace existing treaties or self-government and treaty negotiations. First nations people understand the connection--I think we all do--between good governance and economic progress. They understand that leaving the outdated Indian Act as it is means leaving first nations without the tools they need to make the progress they want.

    At a joint press conference, Ontario Chief Joe Miskokomon had this to say about the Indian Act and what we should do with it:

It does not put the First Nations and the First Nation communities accountable to their own people. But more so accountable to the government of Canada and in particular the department of Indian Affairs.

    This is what Joe Miskokomon said. He called it “paternalistic at worst and outdated at best”. That's why we went out into the community to hear directly from the people, holding more than 450 consultation sessions in more than 200 first nations communities. We received mail and continue to host a website and a 1-800 number. All told, more than 10,000 first nations people took part and expressed their views.

    Mr. Chairman, it's our intention to continue consulting. As you know, I'm in the process of finalizing a proposed first nations governance bill. Once the bill is before Parliament, I plan to ask members to refer the bill to this committee before second reading. My objective here will be to provide members with a broad scope to propose amendments to improve the bill once they, too, have had an opportunity to consult with first nations and Canadians on this important legislation.

    As I have stated before, the first nations governance initiative is not an end but a bridge--a bridge from the old to the new, where communities operate under a system of government created for first nations by first nations.

    We are all aware that this is not the whole answer. That is why three other initiatives are under development in partnership with first nations.

    You may recall that just a number of weeks ago we opened up the First Nations Land Management Act to other first nations, providing more communities with the opportunity to opt out of the land management sections of the Indian Act and exercise more control with respect to managing lands and resources. This means that more communities will have the right tools to attract investment from the outside, and where there is investment, Mr. Chairman, as I've said many times, there is opportunity. Where there is opportunity, a community can break the cycle of poverty, create hope, and focus on building a quality of life that many of us in this room take for granted.

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Chairman, we're also helping to strengthen the fiscal capacity of first nations. Four new institutions are planned: a first nations tax commission to provide alternative sources of revenue; a first nations finance authority to clarify borrowing authority; a first nations financial management board to provide independent accounting and other services; a first nations statistical institute to provide reliable data on things like population and economic growth. These are powers that every government in Canada take for granted because they are so basic to success. They help to build businesses, roads, and houses, the foundations of healthy and successful communities.

    We also need to address the issues of land claims because sound governance won't impress investors if ownership of the lands and resources itself is in dispute. We have seen real success in places like the Yukon. When the only two remaining negotiating tables reach their memorandum of understanding, which we expect some time in June, the land issue could be resolved for all 14 first nations in the Yukon. This is a significant achievement, given that we had seven such negotiating tables just two years ago.

    Continued serious engagement in land claim negotiation will reaffirm that first nations and the Government of Canada remain committed to negotiating mutually beneficial resolution of claims rather than litigation. By settling these claims, we will remove an enormous roadblock to economic development for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in Canada. That's why, Mr. Chairman, we are also moving forward to create an independent claims body to replace the current specific claims commission, intended to expedite settlements.

    All of this and other efforts are working to streamline the land claims and self-government approvals and negotiating processes and to sharpen the focus on those tables that are producing promising results. Taken together, these initiatives will provide the certainty, stability, and credibility for strong fiscal management and governance. They will provide a solid foundation for investment and help empower first nations themselves. With these systems in place, first nations governments will be better equipped to foster economic development in their communities.

    As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have a very strong bias to the north, so it would be inappropriate for me to ever come before the committee if I didn't speak about the north and the work that we're doing in the north. So I want to mention to you that working with northerners, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, is also a priority of ours. We must ensure that all northerners participate in decisions that will profoundly affect the future of their territories. Our focus in the north is on strengthening northern regimes in terms of clarity, certainty, and time lines, in particular for a gas pipeline, consistent with our commitment to northern sustainable development and on making progress on devolution.

    We are also paying particular attention to contaminated sites in the north. In the short term, we must prevent these from causing further environmental damage while planning for orderly remediation programs in the longer term. For the future, we have built a mine site reclamation policy that ensures that industry meets its responsibilities to protect the environment and minimizes the taxpayers' long-term liability.

Á  (1120)  

    Throughout my department's mandate, we recognize the need for a balanced approach in economic and social development, because obviously they go hand in hand. Our efforts are focused on promoting sustainable economic development through strong foundations of governance, investing in people, and improving community infrastructure.

    Mr. Chair, these are the priorities that will guide us through the next year. They offer great opportunities to work with first nations people, Inuit, and other northerners to ensure they attain a quality of life comparable to other Canadians. We, on the government side--and I hope all members of Parliament--are determined to create and to share this opportunity. There's no question in my mind we are well on our way to a better future.

    So I give you these as my opening remarks and look forward to questions from the members.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

    I will say your opening remarks are pretty daring. You're a brave minister. You spoke of education, infrastructure, housing, health care, demographics, land management, fiscal capacity, land claims, the north, devolution, contamination, environment, economic development, social development, governance, and consultations. You have opened the door for the chair to allow almost any question to be asked. It doesn't matter; they would ask them anyway.

    But this time it will be legitimate, because of your opening that door. I say this to you as my way of saying to my colleagues that I will be very modest or forgiving on the questions you will be asked.

    But to my colleagues, I know governance is very important to all of us. We must keep in mind that we can criticize anything we can see. I just want to make clear, I don't have a bill in front of me. Of course, you may be critical of whatever you wish. If it goes too far on one issue, we'll have to try to work around that and not just talk of one issue in the meeting. There is lots of room for you, my colleagues.

    The first round will be seven minutes of questions and answers. When I turn on my light, it's because time's up. Don't make me interrupt you.

    So we'll start with Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Nault, for being here. I will covet my time very carefully in asking questions. I know your answers will be to the point and as direct as we can get.

    I do want to ask, Mr. Minister, about the ADM for socio-economic policy and programs, who talked about some fundamental policy reforms to the Senate standing committee, particularly including the option of attaching program eligibility to first nations persons rather than to their residency on reserve. The statement was made to the effect that they're just as aboriginal on reserve as off reserve.

    To my understanding of the figures, this year we've already had--with all the DIAND programs and the others offered by a dozen federal departments--about a 4% increase in spending. Given that, I guess my question is, what would that do to the spending if we get to the point of reforming all these other off-reserve...taking a greater responsibility for spending there? What would that do to spending? It's somewhat of a rhetorical question, but you must have some comprehension or sense of the nature of the explosion of spending there would be with that.

    I guess my follow-up question is, how are the needs, which would be met under that expansion, being met now?

    Am I making myself plain in the question here?

    Mr. Robert Nault: You are clear.

    There's a very easy answer to that. It's not the policy of the Government of Canada, nor our jurisdictional position at this point, to fund off-reserve first nations citizens. That's the jurisdiction of the provinces.

    I understand one of my officials was being asked a question about what we are preparing to do with issues of aboriginal poverty off reserve in some of the urban centres. She did say it was normal practice in our department and other departments of the government to continue to study all the options of how we want to deal with both on- and off-reserve people, in partnership with the provinces. But that jurisdiction for off-reserve people rests with the provinces. There's no intention of changing that policy at this point.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. I guess maybe I misunderstood what she said.

    She apparently had talked in terms of fundamental policy reform, including studying the option of attaching program eligibility. You're saying the context of it is such that she was not really saying there's going to be an expansion into off reserve? Is that what I'm understanding you to say?

    Mr. Robert Nault: That's right.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay. And you're telling me as well then that most of that is covered by the provinces as things presently stand, obviously.

    Mr. Robert Nault: That's right. I can tell you, though, that we are working in a number of provinces--and I will use the province of Alberta as an example.

    We are in discussion and negotiation with the Blood tribe and the Province of Alberta to allow for the first nation to deliver social services, including things like welfare, to community members both on and off reserve. But of course that component of the funding off reserve would come from the provincial government, and then our share would be the share on reserve, which we do fund now.

    Those kinds of partnerships and discussions are going on and are being negotiated as we speak. So there are some fundamental shifts in policy based on the renewed interest of the provincial governments to find ways to bring efficiencies to our relationship with first nations citizens.

    I can suggest to you that in Saskatchewan, with FSIN and the Province of Saskatchewan, we're having the same discussion at our negotiations for self-government and our fiscal relationship table and our treaty table. The objective of those discussions is to find ways to develop strategies and programs that would include both on and off reserve.

    That's a provincial jurisdiction, and if the province is willing, we are certainly sending the message that we're prepared to have that discussion.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The other question gets into our far west province, where recently they had the Haida and the Taku River Tlingit cases against British Columbia in the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling that they needn't prove their claims to rights entitled in order for the government obligation to be triggered.

    So regarding my question...I'm sure lots of people are asking this, because we do want to help native people in terms of investments and such, but it would seem that's really going to stand in the way of that. It threatens the potential for investment in those areas, investment for the province.

    That would be my question, Minister Nault, in view of, say, the Haida decision. How does it affect investor confidence? Does your department have some study or whatever that's being done to get a read of that, and will it have an impact on the department's planning in the days ahead in that area?

    Mr. Robert Nault: I won't speak specifically to those particular cases because they're before the courts, but I can tell you that it has always been our objective to negotiate versus litigate, and of course we need all partners at the table in order to successfully achieve that.

    Yes, we have done some studies that go back a number of years, but that particular study showed that the uncertainty and the climate in the natural resource sector in British Columbia because we do not have modern-day treaties is costing that economy, in a conservative estimate, about $1 billion a year.

    Uncertainty is a big cost factor for investors and for decisions by large corporations, who make those decisions based on an understanding of who owns the land or who has the tenure for the forest and the like. So our objective has been to send a message that we want to negotiate with first nations to arrive at modern-day governance initiatives that will clarify for investors, for all Canadians, and benefit first nations citizens so that we can get on with the investments necessary to improve the quality of life of not only aboriginal people but the citizens of, in this case, British Columbia.

    So there are always court cases in my department, as it relates to aboriginal people, that we work around as we try to move forward to develop a relationship in a modern context with aboriginal people.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Minister, thank you for being here. Rumour has it that Parliament will be adjourning around June 7. Will the bill on governance be tabled before then?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: It certainly is my intention to have it to you before the end of the session.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

    In April 1999, the Auditor General identified some problems with the management of the department's financial transfers and follow-up. What steps have been taken over the past three years to ensure that there has been follow-up on the department's financial transfers? Was the work done in conjunction with the various First Nations communities?

Á  (1135)  

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: Could you clarify exactly for me what particular area you're speaking of? One of the areas the Auditor General focused on was our results-based systems and the accountability structures within our department. On the management side, we have done some significant work on that, and I can have Ms. Davies talk specifically about those and the ongoing program.

    At the end of your comments you made the suggestion about the aboriginal communities as well, so that took me off course there. What are you referring to? Are you referring to the contribution agreements that we have with first nations communities?

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: No, my question dealt with the management of the transfers, since the Auditor General had identified some problems in that regard.

    Here's my first question. What has been done within the department to deal with the problems that were identified at the time?

    Secondly, were the various First Nations communities involved in the follow-up to ensure that these problems no longer exist?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish the member was a little bit clearer on exactly what he's talking about. He has a pretty broad stroke here.

    As I've said to this committee many times before, we have close to a thousand audits of first nations and their organizations. Those audits are very much part of our ongoing role of making sure we understand where the financial resources go, as best we possibly can. Those audits are done by professional accountants and then transmitted to the department with either a qualified or unqualified report. If there's a need to follow up on some issues within the audit, that is part of our structure to do so as we go forward. We do that as a regular part of our business.

    As I had mentioned to you last time I was here during the estimates, at the next fiscal year we would be changing our audit requirements. That would include a release of the government side of the revenues to the general public. That has now been done, and I want to report to you that with all audits this year, the federal government's portion of the financial resources that are transferred to first nations will be made public to all citizens as a way of being transparent and accountable and having a better understanding of what particular resources flow for particular programs in those communities. Keep in mind that we still have a court case called Montana that suggests that we cannot release other source revenue because of the privacy surrounding those financial resources. So we will still only release the portion that deals with federal money.

    If that's the kind of change you're speaking of, those have been implemented, and we continue to monitor the structure of the contribution agreements.

    I want to tell you, though, Mr. Chairman, that contribution agreements and the audits of them can only take you so far in the area of accountability and in the area of governance structures. They are a contribution agreement as you would have with any organization. They are not intended to be a transfer of resources. They are intended to be an explanation of what is required under our policies and programs in that transfer--for example, of education. That's done on a per capita basis and so many are based on enrollment.

    I think the member is headed towards a particular issue, but I'll let him get to it. I know where he's going now.

    Go ahead. I've figured out where you and Pat are going. It's not hard to figure out.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?

    The Chair: A minute and a half, but I am going to give you another thirty seconds. You have two minutes.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I am going to come back to that topic, as I absolutely want to ask another question.

    You are aware of the agreement between the Innus on the North Shore and the Quebec government. I would like to know how much federal government funding has been earmarked for this agreement?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, we're still in the process of negotiating with the Innu. Those decisions have not been made because we're still getting to recognition of an agreement in principle. I think the member would be a little bit premature to be asking that question. Once we get to an agreement in principle--between the agreement in principle and the final agreement, there is a lot of room for discussion about the financial resources of that agreement itself.

    As you know, the federal government has not signed that agreement. Quebec seems to be in quite a hurry. I think there's an election coming. We have some work to do on that particular file and have given the first nations community the understanding and the undertaking that once we've done our due diligence as a government, we will then, hopefully, be in a position to sign the agreement in principle and move forward. In fairness, the discussions on the financial side of these agreements are left to the AIP and the final agreement discussions. So we haven't got there yet.

Á  (1140)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: When does the federal government expect there to be an agreement?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: That's a very difficult question to answer, simply because the negotiations are in many dynamics. I would hope that within the next number of months we will complete our work and be able to sign an AIP. That's obviously the objective of myself, the Government of Canada, and our negotiators. But again, to ask me when I think we might have a final agreement, Mr. Chairman, there are too many variables that are unknown between an AIP and a final agreement to enable me to answer.

    There are many different kinds of agreements in principle, and if you ever have time to take a look at them, there are what you call shallow AIPs, there are full AIPs where everything is in it, and there are half measures between the two. The kind of AIP we have will dictate, to some extent, the issues that are left on the table and how long it will take.

    I hope that within the next year or so we will have a better understanding of whether there is the political will for us, the Quebec government, and of course the Innu to reach a final settlement and to move forward with a new governing structure, a new relationship.

    The Chair: Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for a very comprehensive brief.

    I'm going to start by asking the obvious question. You've made the aboriginal leadership in this country hopping mad, let's face it. Even though your brief sounds fairly benign and innocuous, and no one's actually seen the governance legislation, something has triggered a volley of hostility out there, second to none.

    What do you think people find so threatening in the bills you're putting together? Why are they so openly hostile toward you right now?

    Mr. Robert Nault: First of all, I would fundamentally disagree that they're hopping mad. It depends, Mr Chairman, on Mr. Martin's definition. There's never been a debate in first nations country that's not been somewhat difficult, and that's fair to say. Otherwise, you wouldn't have an archaic piece of legislation called the Indian Act that's never been structurally changed. So I think it's fair to say that this has always been an issue that exercises a number of people. I think it's a very fundamental and important debate. Why we have decided--and rightfully so--in 2002 to go directly to talk to the people as part of our consultation--

    Mr. Pat Martin: And to bypass leadership, is what they would say.

    Mr. Robert Nault: Just wait, I'll get to that. As I was saying, why we are working in a way that gets some feedback from the community is because there is a debate that has been going on for a number of years.

    The position of some of the leadership--and I don't mind telling you because it's one that I have made very clear on many occasions--is that the only way we are going to negotiate is through section 35. And I want to report to you, Mr. Chairman, that that's the status quo. We are negotiating under section 35 today. That's what the 80 tables across the country are doing. That's what we're doing with the Innu. It's under section 35, and that's the self-government portion of our work.

    The question remains, at the rate that we're going with our negotiation and the need to make improvements to people's lives today, are we willing to put all our efforts into section 35 discussions and not move forward in practical ways to improve the lives of first nations citizens and take the chance that we might never get there in some communities?

    For example, in Mr. Martin's area of Manitoba, we've been at the negotiating table off and on for almost ten years. We have virtually made very little progress on that file. And if I were to be very blunt with you, Mr. Chairman, at the rate we're going with the self-government negotiations in Manitoba, it would be another generation before we resolve our profound differences.

    So the debate we're having has to be positioned in two ways. One is an interim step in improving the Indian Act, which is what the communities practically all live under today, and to improve their capacity to govern and to give them the tools they need as an interim step toward self-government. I think most people would argue that would be a prudent thing to do, with an understanding that we still are very committed to going toward self-government.

    So when Mr. Martin and others say, “You've made people hopping mad”, I don't think so. Quite frankly, I think it's been a good debate so far. We have had one round of consultation. I have committed--and I hope you're committed as well--to do a second round of consultation. It will be very interesting to see the approach of the committee, once you've seen the legislation, and whether your views will be the same as they are today.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Pat Martin: My time is ticking away, Minister, but thank you very much for the answer.

    The Chair: Mr. Martin, I will take this opportunity and I'll give you back the time. When I say you have seven minutes, it's okay to manage your own time, so if you want to cut in, go ahead.

    Mr. Pat Martin: I didn't want to interrupt the minister. He was answering my question, and it's fair enough.

    I do have one specific question, though. How much have you spent in this first round of consultation, Minister? As you know, there are some people who aren't thrilled about the way the consultation went. I won't dwell on that, but how much did you spend to do this first round of consultation?

    Mr. Robert Nault: It's pretty much a well-known fact. We spent $10 million. Of this, $6 million went to the regions for consultation directly between our department and the regional governance teams that were set up in places like, for example, Saskatchewan, where we had agreement with all first nations except I think three. We had a joint initiative in every one of those first nations that was headed by a governance team.

    So about $6 million went directly to the regions for consultation with every single first nation that wanted to participate. The other $4 million went to the national organizations that chose to participate, and a portion of that went to JMAC, the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee. JMAC was intended to be the other component of our discussions to allow first nations representatives to come and give the minister and the Government of Canada advice. So those three components totalled about $10 million.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you. These four new institutions that you're planning, the first nations tax commission, the first nations finance authority, etc., can you tell us more what that will look like, who will staff that, who will be the chairs, the directors? What do you envision for how these will look?

    Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I have to separate governance from some of the other initiatives, and I want to tell you a little bit the reason why.

    As you know, in this place you get your mandate from cabinet, and in cabinet I was given the mandate to share--that's why JMAC exists--draft pieces of legislation with first nations people and their representatives. So the work of governance is a pretty open, transparent one.

    On the fiscal institution side, I have not gotten, of course, the same mandate from cabinet, so I can't give Mr. Martin the same details. But the objective is to put institutions in place that will allow first nations and first nations members to be members of the boards of these institutions, with the objective of not only building a fiscal relationship with us as a government, or with municipal governments, or with provincial governments, but also to allow their own communities to come up with fiscal structures that will allow them to create other sources of revenue as one way of developing their economy. So those fiscal institutions will be run and operated by first nations people, and hopefully first nations people who have some expertise in those particular areas.

    The Chair: Mr. Mark.

    Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, Ind. Cons.): Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you again. When I first came to the Hill, you and I worked together in the same committee.

    Welcome, Mr. Minister and staff.

    Just to put in context my own background, this is my first formal meeting representing the PC Party as their critic.

    I have 13 reservations in my own riding. For many years I've worked with the aboriginal community, long before I came to the Hill.

    Anyway, I'll make a few comments and I'll ask you some questions.

    There's no doubt that the aboriginal history in Canada is a sad one. I believe Canadians want to see this come to an end. History has shown that the paternalistic approach, which we've read about and discussed--certainly reading the minutes from the last several meetings--has failed miserably under both the British and Canadian governments.

    Mr. Minister, I agree with you that we need a debate, a fresh start on this whole issue of aboriginals becoming the masters of their own fate. I believe Canadians want to see this happen as well. Certainly I believe self-government is really the goal, self-government that would bring about aboriginals being the masters of their own fate and getting away from this paternalistic approach, but within the context of being members of this country and citizens of Canada. This morning you talked about the basic needs being the same needs that all Canadians have, which are education, infrastructure, the ability to feed ourselves, and to make sure our kids go to school and become contributing members of society.

    I recently communicated with the leadership in Manitoba, who I know very well--Grand Chief Dennis Whitebird, Grand Chief Francis Flett, and Grand Chief Margaret Swan. I was puzzled last summer because you had two meetings scheduled in my riding and neither of them took place. They were both cancelled. I was looking forward to actually attending your meetings.

    My first job is to bring up some of the concerns the grand chiefs have. They represent the aboriginal community in Manitoba. They consider your governance act a top-down process. The proposal is not based on first nations support. In fact, they tell me the JMAC didn't even reach a consensus. I wonder if you can address that. They feel the government's basis of support is faulty. Maybe you can start with those concerns they have.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, let me be my usual blunt self. First of all, you can't force anyone to be involved in consultation. This consultation process we entered into over a year ago was the most comprehensive consultation ever structured and put forward by any department of government, and this department in particular, in its history.

    The reason and rationale for that is because I knew from my experience with my own 51 first nations that this would be an issue that the national leadership would be directed not to participate in, as they have been doing for the last 20 years. But it is fundamental, in my view, that if we're going to build a first nations economy, we have to have the fundamentals of governance in place. Yes, it is our preference to do it at the self-governing negotiation tables, and we would very much want to send the message this afternoon to you that this is still a priority of the government. But the question has to be, what do you do in the meantime if this is going to take a generation or two. Do you not build the capacity to go to self-government?

    The argument being put in the poll that I mentioned to you, and which has not been flagged by the media correctly, and which, of course, has been twisted by some of the leadership, is that when first nations citizens in the poll were asked about their priorities, self-government--self-government, not governance--was way down on the priority list.

    I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and to others that a lot of first nations people are not going to support self-government at this stage in their development because they're not ready to be on their own in that capacity. We have a lot of work to do to build institutions, to build fundamentals of governance, before people will feel comfortable, as the Nisga’a did. Even when you have the Cree in front of you from northern Quebec, they'll tell you that after a generation of working on governance alone, they have learned a lot and are still struggling with a lot of issues.

    To suggest that we should put the Indian Act aside, even though almost every single first nation of this country lives under it, I think would be a dereliction of duty. We have the right to move forward on that.

    Has this been talked down? Absolutely not. As you know, we made a joint initiative and put it forward to all the leadership. They had a right to participate or not to participate, and some chose not to. I appreciate that. I don't understand it, quite frankly.

    I will make one other point, Mr. Chairman, and then let Mr. Mark ask me a few other questions, but this point baffles me. I asked the vice-chiefs about this in February: How can you be fundamentally opposed to something you have not seen? How can you have a legal opinion on something you have not seen? You as a legislator should ask that question, because I've been asking it. Lately some members of Parliament have been opposed to something they have not seen nor read. Now I find that to be somewhat humorous, simply because the first thing I learned when, as a 33-year-old, I came to Parliament is I should read the legislation before I make up my mind whether or not I'm opposed.

    I have said to first nations citizens and the leadership, tell me what you think once you've seen the legislation. If I haven't listened to the people in the communities based on our consultation, if this is not enabling legislation that moves away from the prescriptive side of the Indian Act, if this has not got it right, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Natural Resources will have an opportunity to make some serious changes, because we'll send it to them before second reading. You can then go into a serious second round of consultation.

    Let's have this discussion in a sophisticated process and not get into this “he said, she said”, where there's a hidden agenda. The only agenda this minister and this government have is to improve the lives of first nations citizens. You cannot do it under the existing Indian Act. That is the status quo. If any member of Parliament is arguing for the status quo, please say so publicly, because I don't think any first nations citizen would agree with you in that regard. They want to see change. They want to see change now, and I'm very much promoting that, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1155)  

    JMAC was the first opportunity, at least since I've been a member of Parliament, to allow representatives of political organizations to give me advice. And yes, the report was not a consensus; it was options and advice.

    JMAC met last week to see draft three of the governance initiative. By the way, you won't be able to get a copy of this one, because I had to make them turn it back in. But the reality was that the third draft--it wasn't a good draft; we still have work to do--was intended to allow JMAC to give us more advice.

    So how do you think we're doing so far?

    Mr. Chairman, I expect there will be drafts four, five, and six in the next couple of weeks, with the objective of getting advice. Then I will come and ask your advice, and you will then go out and consult. But I will not accept the argument by any leader that we're boycotting talking to the government, because we need to make change, and it's not a top-down process. It's been very much driven by going to the communities. If people choose not to, I quite frankly think they're not doing their job.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I allowed two extra minutes because there were three questions, and I felt the information was of interest to all members.

    Monsieur St-Julien.

[Translation]

    Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you for coming, Mr. Minister. I know that you are doing a good job and that your department is dealing with some difficult issues. I have one comment and three questions, which you could perhaps answer in writing.

    In your opening remarks, you mentioned housing several times. We know that housing problems for First Nations and Inuit people have reached crisis proportions in many regions in Canada.

    The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which verifies to what extent Canada honours its international obligations in this regard, has already expressed its concern. Overcrowding has broader social and health-related consequences when, it leads to mould or when children do not have a place to study. Unlike previous years, the Report on Plans and Priorities does not set an objective with respect to the number of housing units to be renovated or built, or with respect to the total number of housing units required.

    Mr. Minister, we know that there is currently a crisis in the softwood lumber industry in Canada because of the American tax. The GWBT, otherwise known as the George “wood” Bush tax, will come into force on May 23 in Canada and will cost the industry and forestry workers about $2 billion.

    I tabled a motion in Parliament. I am proposing that your department and the other departments sit down and set up a new program that would aim to keep our wood in Canada over the next few years.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Just a minute. I am trying to see if this is linked to Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I hope you are going to get to the point soon, because we discussed natural resources two days ago.

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: In fact, I have received calls and letters at my office from aboriginal persons who are concerned with the softwood lumber conflict. They want the department to get involved in housing. Canadian softwood lumber should remain in Canada and be used to build houses for aboriginal people, because we know there is a shortage.

    I'm going to go directly to my other questions. How many First Nations and Inuit communities can obtain funds for housing? How does the department evaluate requirements? Why did this year's estimates not set any objectives as regards housing?

    The Chair: Mr. St-Julien, you have just asked seven questions. Be reasonable.

    Mr. Minister, you can answer the questions that concern you. I can assure you that you are going to run out of time.

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: That is precisely why I asked the minister to respond in writing, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: We are dealing with the estimates and we have to complete our work today. Information that comes in later will not affect the work...

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: Will you allow me to finish up since I have a bit of time left?

    The Chair: Do you want to take time away from the minister?

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: No. I will only take five seconds, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Minister, this afternoon I am going to put a question on the Notice Paper.

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    It's well known that Mr. St-Julien is a great advocate on behalf of his communities in northern Quebec, with the objective of finding some ways to improve the quality of life through improving the housing. I will take the opportunity, of course, to give him a written response, because it's quite an in-depth one. But I also want to report to you that we are in discussions with the Cree from northern Quebec on opportunities to find a way to improve the housing stock. We've been talking about that with Grand Chief Moses for a while now.

    It's not unique to the Cree in northern Quebec; it's very much the same issue in northern Ontario. One of the problems the communities face is a lack of employment, a lack of opportunity. First nations citizens are no different from other Canadians who are on social assistance: they cannot afford to participate in any way in their own housing.

    The objective of the plan we've laid out for you this morning in my comments was to put together the fundamentals to create an economy so first nations citizens can participate in mortgages and buying homes, just like any other Canadian. If anyone in this room has the belief that the Government of Canada can fund every single first nation and every single first nation house, I think it's unrealistic to accept that and to expect it. That's not the objective of the exercise. Obviously, we're trying to work with the first nations communities to improve their infrastructure and housing stock. We're doing the best we can with the resources we have.

    I think we have to go back to my original comment. Are we looking for short-term solutions or are we looking for a long-term relationship and a process? That's why I started with the fundamentals of governance and institution-building, going from there to building an economy through a fiscal relationship. I think that's where we need to go, and we need to do it now. We don't need to have a debate for another 20 years.

    That's been my message, I hope, this morning, and I hope it's one that's well received. I don't have the kind of answer Mr. St-Julien seeks, to give to him or any member; we just don't have enough money because of the population growth to pay for every single house for every family in the first nations communities. First nations citizens expect they will take their own responsibility for their own housing at some point in the future. That's really the objective to which we're headed.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: The second round is a five-minute round.

    Mr. Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Minister, if I can get an answer to my first question here in about a minute or less, that would be great. With a 4% increase, roughly, from DIAND itself, plus a dozen other federal departments--that's my understanding, unless I'm way out on that particular figure--I'll give you the opportunity, in a minute or less, to justify that increase. Why were increases in certain areas not achieved through a reallocation? Why was there roughly a 4% increase, or thereabouts, if I understand it, and why not a reallocation from within?

    Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I can be very quick.

    It's about a 5% increase. The rationale for it is that the population growth is twice the Canadian average.

    This minister and the department have spent the last two years prioritizing our spending, and of course with that reallocating. We're certainly at a point where we're running out of room to reallocate without affecting programs we very much think are important.

    So the rationale very much is the population growth, the needs of the communities, and the cost of delivering provincial-like services in a first nation.

    I think it's fair to say to this committee, Mr. Chairman, that there are members who use numbers very loosely out in the press and say, “Well, every first nations citizen gets so many thousand per head”. I think we should be very careful when we do that, because we have a fiduciary and legal obligation to deliver provincial-like services to first nations where there are no other provincial services supplied by the provincial government. We do infrastructure, which is included in that figure everybody uses. When you factor all that out that a province would help a non-native municipality with, I think the numbers are pretty much the same. That's why I would encourage people to be careful when using the numbers.

    If the member wanted to be more specific as to what particular area he would like to see us reprioritize--

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: No, I just raised the question, and you've answered very adequately and I think very forthrightly. I thank you for that.

    My other question is that it's often brought up, at least by first nations people, that they feel they're more audited, that more is required of them than any others. In fact, in the Auditor General's report, they note the example of some of the different foundations, where the government paid $7.1 billion through transfers for nine foundations. They said:

In their governance and accountability, these funds and foundations are clearly further away from the government than the granting councils are. They are not formally answerable to Parliament through ministers. In our view, the foundations have been placed beyond the reach of effective ministerial oversight and parliamentary scrutiny.

    That's another area, but how do you respond to the suggestion that the department requires--at least in the minds of some of the first nations--a higher degree of accountability from first nations than the federal government is subjecting itself to?

    Mr. Robert Nault: You will confront this debate when you see the first nations governance bill. The first nations governance bill for the first time will recognize first nations as a legal entity. There is a big debate in the communities about whether that's appropriate or not, and you will have to give me some very profound advice about it.

    The reality of it is, if you're not considered a legal entity, then you obviously have some very serious accountability issues that have to be front and centre in order to transfer taxpayers' money. If we were to move to a government-to-government relationship, as we've done with some communities, like the Nisga'a, who are now a legal entity under their self-government agreement.... They have taken responsibility for some of those decisions legally.

    So the argument I'll be making to you in front of the committee when you see the first nations governance bill is, if first nations all become legal entities, as other governments throughout the world are, they take on certain responsibilities, including our ability to transfer money directly in block funding and allow them to make their own decisions and set their own priorities. Because that doesn't take place today--except for the self-governing first nations--we have no choice but to ask for the kind of accountability structure under the audit.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are you saying there will be greater accountability then by virtue of the entity that they will become? Is that the inference?

    Mr. Robert Nault: Yes, there will be greater accountability to their citizens themselves, not to the Minister of Indian Affairs, which is the objective of the exercise. If you want to build a strong community, the first nation government has to be accountable to their community members, not to the Minister of Indian Affairs. That's what the Indian Act does.

    What the enabling legislation under first nations governance will do, when you see it, is transfer those responsibilities to the citizens and the community. Obviously there will be some checks and balances dealing with accountability and transparency, which every government has to deal with, as you well know.

    The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

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

    As you know, our national Inuit organization has been requesting a process for the Inuit population. We looked through the estimates, and I know most of the estimates are for first nations and the Indian Act. We feel, as a small Inuit population in Canada with about 50,000 people, and all taxpayers, that they want recognition for Inuit-only programs. I would like to find out if the department has made any movement on that--seeing that all of the material in front of me is for first nations.

    As you are aware, speaking with the mayors who were here last week, there was a request for another economic development agreement for the north.

    On a different issue, but dealing with aboriginal women, speaking with some of the presenters a couple of months ago, they felt that their issues were not covered under the new governance initiative and wondered if at some point in time that will be covered.

    Also, I have one very quick question on the Aboriginal Healing Foundation. I know the foundation was set up as separate entity, but communities in my riding have been having difficulty accessing those funds and wondering if there is any chance of the criteria being changed so that communities that are trying to heal themselves could access some of those funds.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I would make a recommendation to your committee this morning. Because the Healing Foundation is an arm's-length corporation, you should invite them to come and speak to you about those kinds of issues. Of course, the Healing Foundation was structured to let an aboriginal board make decisions on those proposals, and the minister doesn't have any influence over that. I do have a member of our department on the board as part of the relationship, at the same time maintaining an arm's-length approach to this foundation. I would suggest that would be better put by your committee to that board itself and its representatives.

    On the Inuit process, I just want to make two points. One is that we should all remember that when we entered into a claim settlement with the Inuit, we also agreed to a public form of government, and Nunavut was formed. It was our objective then, because the majority of the population in that public government is Inuit, to transfer funds to the public government. That's the way we would develop the majority of our relationships and our programs. I don't want to get too far down the road with this, but to suggest very strongly that we have tried to develop our relationship with this public government and at the same time meet our commitments to the Inuit based on the claim settlement and the agreement we arrived at a number of years ago.

    That isn't to suggest that the Inuit leadership should not have a specific role in some of the issues that are specific to their culture. I'm very sensitive to that, and of course I've included the Inuit for the first time in a review we're doing on what we call political organizations and their funding. The Inuit itself and its political organizations do not get core funding from the Department of Indian Affairs, while many other organizations do. It certainly is my objective to come back with a review completed and the rationale as to why that is not the case, because I think the Inuit and its leadership play the same role as some of the aboriginal politicians do in their PTOs.

    On economic development, Mr. Chairman, I'm very supportive of an economic development initiative for the north. I have been promoting it, as my colleagues on the government side would know, simply because I think on the one hand it's a small population, but on the other hand there's tremendous potential for the nation. It's a nation-building exercise.

    If you were to look at this on a per capita basis, it's no different if I would use the tar sands in Mr. Chatters' riding. If we did that on a per capita basis, we would never have invested billions of dollars into the tar sands. It was the right thing to do. I think there's great opportunity north of 60, and I would like to see the members support me in promoting that it's good for the nation to put investments into the north, infrastructure and otherwise, to develop their economy. That would have great impact for our nation in generations to come. It certainly wouldn't get you elected tomorrow, but it's not about politics; it's about the right thing to do. I am very much encouraged by Nancy's comments.

    The last point, Mr. Chairman, is on aboriginal women, very quickly. I have made a commitment to aboriginal women. There are some fundamental issues under the Indian Act, and as you know, aboriginal women in this country have taken the Government of Canada to court. We have made ourselves available to look at proposals to fund aboriginal organizations that want to participate in having a voice. One aboriginal group chose to participate and the other didn't. I can't force people to participate, but we are still welcoming their participation and are prepared to fund it because we want aboriginal women's voices to be heard in this debate.

  (1215)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Minister, can you give us an idea as to the costs of managing litigation between 1996-97 and 2002-03?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't think I could do that offhand, but I certainly could give the member an undertaking to put it in writing. We don't have any difficulty with that. It's all part of the estimates. We'd have to go back and have a look. It's significant. I think we're the largest client of the Department of Justice.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Have costs gone up or down?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: I would say the costs have gone up.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Why?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: Because there are more claims being submitted by first nations every year. That is one of the reasons why we think the specific claims work on the independent claims body and commission and tribunal is a very important piece of work, because it will allow us to start moving these claims a lot faster through the system than the way we presently operate, having Justice look at and review every claim. We think we can do it through the commission and tribunal, move some of these claims through, because they are significant.

    As I understand it, I think we have presently over 400, and it's expected that we will probably see 2,000 claims in the next number of years. Those are all based on specific legal issues that were caused by governments making decisions on land and resources, and based on our commitments under the treaty. We do think that's the reason you would be very supportive of the commission and tribunal. I hope to put that legislation in front of you very soon, in the near future.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: We have heard that costs have tripled since 1996-97. Doesn't this exponential growth prove that negotiations are failing? If yes, what explains that? If not, why?

    Secondly, how would an independent claims body help reduce costs if you still need lawyers? I assume it will be an administrative tribunal.

    Thirdly, who will sit on this independent body?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: The commission and tribunal will have, of course, commissioners who will be appointed by order in council. Those decisions will be made by the Prime Minister. That's his prerogative.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: So, we would be creating a new administrative tribunal.

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: Yes, it will be the first of its kind. There will be no tribunal or commission like it in the world. You'll see it will be very unique to Canada's needs.

  (1220)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Clearly, if the appointments are made exclusively by the Prime Minister, there is a danger that the government will be perceived as being its own judge. I assume that, when a claim is settled, the government and the First Nations must reach a settlement together.

    Have the First Nations been consulted in any way on the appointment of these commissioners? Justice must not only be rendered, but there must also be an appearance of justice.

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I think the member has a very good question to ask. It certainly is important for the commission and tribunal to have the best people who are considered to be experts in their field. As always, that prerogative rests through order in council, and the crown has always exercised that role with the greatest amount of respect.

    I have given the first nations leadership the undertaking that they can present a list of names to me as part of the process, and then obviously I will be recommending to the Prime Minister who I think is a good person for this.

    But I want to take the member back to comments he's made to me previously of how important he believed the report of the royal commission was. I want to remind him that the royal commission and the commissioners were appointed by the Prime Minister of the day. That does not stop the member from saying that was good work. So I do think the government is capable of appointing good members to a commission and tribunal, and I'm very confident the Prime Minister will do so.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): I was happy to hear your remarks on economic development. As you know, Nancy, Ethel, and I have been working on that for some time. We're also delighted you mentioned the north when you talked about the whole country--your special place for it. And I'm happy about the number of times you've visited my riding. I was just talking to the grand chief about it. I know you have a large task in the country--51 first nations in your own riding.

    Not long after I was first elected, a national newspaper was talking about the villages and communities in the Yukon and they said there's a member that mentions places no one's ever heard of. I hope they're listening today, because they've probably never heard of the Northern and Southern Tutchone, the Tlingit, the Han, the Gwich'in, and the Kaska--the great first nations peoples of the Yukon. They should have heard of them and they should know about them.

    Sometimes it's frustrating for me when you see news stories about land claims, self-government, and progress, and they're talking about B.C. and Ontario. Yet the Yukon is so far ahead, with 14 first nations, many of which now have constitutionally protected agreements and self-governing powers that are equal to or in some cases greater than those of the provinces. A lot of Canadians don't know about that.

    Could you just expand on that a bit so that the country is aware of the great progress that's been made in the Yukon?

    Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, the member is absolutely right that the Yukon leads the nation in an area that we've been talking about this morning, with Mr. Martin and others. This is the issue of our priority of going to self-government.

    When I first became the minister, we had seven first nations in self-government, if I'm not mistaken. We now have agreements with an eighth. We have agreements with four others, and there are two more to go. We're hopeful we will have these concluded in the next few months.

    All of that is to say we will have 14 self-governing first nations in the Yukon, with protected rights under section 35 of the Constitution. What this tells us is we are entering into a new phase. The Yukon's first nations will play a very important role in giving us advice on how to develop and implement self-government between governments. Under the claim, the first nations have significant powers of their own. So it'll become a government to government to government relationship.

    I have, as you know, of course, funded the government's secretariat in the Yukon with the objective of giving them the capacity to develop a way ahead. So we will learn from the Yukon as to how to implement self-government.

    I'll just make this point to you because it's important. We're in court because of mistakes of the past, and because we made decisions, in which, of course, it could be argued in which we didn't fulfil our obligation. It's my hope that we will not make the same mistake for the next generation, which would be to implement self-government in a way that doesn't meet our obligations under the agreement and end up in court again.

    We really have to learn from this exercise. So one of the things I've been promoting within my own department is we have to have a business line with a unit in each region for implementation of self-government. That will be important as part of our obligations under the agreement we signed.

    I think the Yukon is leading the way in this perspective. I believe very strongly the agreements we have for the Yukon are very good agreements for the communities, for the first nations, and of course for the Yukon Territory.

    As I said in my comments, we have certainty, meaning we can get on with the next most important issue for all of us, which is building an economy for the first nations in the Yukon and being equal partners in developing strategies. I bring that point to you because that's where self-government will take us, and that's where the interim step called first nations governance will take a lot of the other communities as we work towards the step to self-government.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Mr. Mark.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I certainly agree with you, Minister, when you say accountability is the key to self-government. I know your aboriginal constituents and mine will certainly be happy to hear if your new legislation makes the local governments more accountable--not only to them but also to non-aboriginals. I think you mentioned comments in that vein the last time you came to this committee.

    There are too many bands--and certainly in my own riding--under third-party management. My first question is, how will this legislation--what kinds of checks and balances will there be--ensure third-party management will be reduced?

    The leadership at the provincial and national levels has been critical of your consultation process--I guess that's the correct way of putting it. My last question, therefore, is whether you have any strategy or new plans on how to re-engage the provincial and national leadership on the issue of this legislation.

    Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I'll go with the last question first.

    We've continued to indicate to the political organizations that there's no going back and we want their participation. You will see a piece of legislation and you will have a debate about the importance of governance.

    I want to take you to an obvious example. We in Canada have been, through international organizations like CIDA, going to third world countries all around the world to preach good governance. Of course, we're not doing it in our own country, so we need to have this debate. And we will have it with or without certain leaders, but I'm very optimistic that many will take the opportunity to come forward and we will make that offer. We will make it, and I hope you will make that offer, to consult with them to get their input.

    On third-party management, you'll see, when you see the first nations governance bill, a series of checks and balances all governments have to live with. One of them has to deal with deficits. You will have to make a decision, as I have in the bill, on what is reasonable deficit. They will have to manage themselves based on what the limit of the deficit will be before the government and/or the minister would have a role to play in intervening. That's a very important issue, one that all governments deal with, and one that I know is very sensitive. So you will see firsthand, yourself, that debate in front of the committee.

    I hope, Mr. Chairman, if I can bootleg a little bit, when you get the legislation this won't be a discussion of whether we should or shouldn't do it. We have no choice but to improve the governance structures of first nations communities and to empower them and give them the abilities to develop an economy. So if people come to the committee and say, we don't want you to do this, period, I think that will diminish the debate. We cannot accept the status quo, and leaving it the way it is accepting the status quo.

    So, yes, we will have a debate, as difficult as it might be for some people. I very much welcome people's opinions on all sides. I think with that we can develop a relationship. I am convinced, once you see the advice I've been given by first nations citizens across the country, you'll see this is a tremendous step forward. That's not to say it's perfect, but I think it'll be a tremendous step forward. I'm looking for your advice as to how to make it even better, keeping in mind that this is not about self-government; this is not about treaty. Those negotiations will continue, as they have been, simply because they're part of our priority as a government.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: You have another minute, Mr. Mark.

    Mr. Bagnell.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: When I was on the board and actually president of Skookum Jim Friendship Centre, I found that over and above those 14 first nations in the one big urban area we have in Whitehorse, there were first nations people who had moved there either from the Yukon or from other parts of Canada where they were from, and were detached, almost like orphans, from the first nations in terms of services and things. The friendship centres do great work, but it could be that large numbers of people.... I'm sure there's a number of people from your first nations in Toronto, for instance. It happens across the country. I want to make sure you're on side and supportive of resources to take care of first nations people who find themselves in those circumstances...and agencies like the friendship centres that are trying to do their best to deal with those circumstances.

    Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, as you know, friendship centres are funded by Heritage Canada.

    I can indicate to my colleague that I'm very supportive of what we call “out of the box” thinking and of not getting all hung up on jurisdiction. I think the role of members of Parliament and public servants is to improve the lives of Canadians, and that includes aboriginal Canadians whether they live on or off reserve. We need to find ways to work together between levels of government, the federal government and first nations governments, so they can help their constituents, whether they live in Whitehorse on reserve or in the community.

    That's been the objective of our work in the last number of months. That was the signal sent when the Prime Minster let Minister Bradshaw go out and deal with issues on poverty and homelessness, because homelessness, as you know, is a provincial jurisdiction. It's not a federal jurisdiction, but we certainly involved ourselves in that because it was the right thing to do. It's a Canadian issue, and a lot of those constituents who are homeless are aboriginal.

    I'm very sensitive to that and will continue to be so. I'm always looking for ways to play a role, even though it's not considered to be our jurisdiction. If it makes sense, sometimes we should just do it.

    I want to give you an example of that. I probably have the best relationship with the Government of Alberta of any government, surprisingly enough, and the second one for me as a minister was with the Government of Quebec. I got along great with the minister. We did a lot of things and worked together very closely, and it was because both of those governments were looking to find solutions and to think outside the box. And so we did some things.

    Now, of course, the Government of Quebec is getting geared up for an election. Things have changed somewhat, and I'm not as involved as I was when the previous minister was there.

    In Alberta, the only question that's always asked is, how can we find a way to do this without a lot of red tape? What's a practical solution, a way to help first nations? I think that's the way you want to develop a relationship as a government.

    I just want to give you that as an argument for not getting all hung up sometimes about “Whose jurisdiction is it anyway?” When people need help, we should be there to help them.

    The Chair: Monsieur Vellacott.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you, Mr. Nault.

    According to that, then, the report on plans and priorities tends to create some kind of legislative legal framework to enable first nations communities to gain access to development capital more easily. You've talked a bit about that.

    What if any impact might that initiative have on the application of section 89 of the Indian Act, which protects real personal property on reserve from mortgage, seizure, and other like mechanisms? In that too I want to get right to the heart of the question, namely, will there ever be the possibility of in fee simple title to property on reserve or some strengthened certificate of possession uniformly across the land?

    I'm quite aware that it's a possibility, but it varies around the country in terms of how that's honoured, recognized, or whatever. How is that affected by the possibility of legislating a legal framework to gain access to capital?

  (1235)  

    Mr. Robert Nault: It's not affected by that. The first nations lands are held in trust by the Government of Canada. Therefore, they cannot be put up for sale for economic or business reasons and will not be affected by this legislation.

    I want to take you back to my earlier comments on when we opened up the First Nations Land Management Act. I'm a firm believer that under the First Nations Land Management Act the first nations will develop their own land use planning structures, which will include a way of dealing with some form of individual first nations ownership of their own house and property. Of course, then it will not be accessible to a non-native if, for example, they get a mortgage. They'll find a way to deal with that, a way that's constructive but that at the same time protects their land base.

    Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's only for those who are under the land management kind of regime, is it?

    Mr. Robert Nault: Well, we're opening it up with the understanding that the Indian Act was never intended to have a land use planning structure such as other forms of government do. It was intended to be a way of keeping first nations citizens protected from Europeans. That's how old this legislation is. There is no land use planning structure under the act, and we have tried to develop that through a process with the department.

    The First Nations Land Management Act, if you recall, was intended to allow them to have a relationship in a planning exercise where they could hopefully harmonize their planning with that of the surrounding communities. You cannot develop an economy by ignoring the surrounding community, whether it's native or non-native. The objective of the exercise was to allow them to build their own process, and I think that will happen.

    We have, I think, 80 first nations who have sent us letters and/or BCRs declaring their wish to enter into first nations governance though the First Nations Land Management Act, with the understanding that they recognize the importance of land use planning.

    It's out of the Indian Act. On the one hand, communities are writing to tell me, “We want out of the Indian Act because we have to get on with developing land use planning strategies.” Meanwhile, other leaders are saying, “Don't touch the Indian Act.” There's a real contradiction. I think you will find that there are many first nations leaders very supportive of getting out from under that restrictive Indian Act and doing something that works for them in a modern context.

    The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

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

    Mr. Minister, I will compliment you on your remarks and on your positive attitude. I think we're going to get somewhere--partly because you refuse to be deflected.

    I went to a little event last night in the National Press Club, sir, that I want to mention because I think it embodies the kind of things you're talking about. It has to do with the Innu and the Inuit in Labrador. We know about Davis Inlet and glue sniffing and gasoline sniffing--the problems that those communities, Sheshatshiu and Davis, have had. This was a partial launch for the chief, Peter Penashue who is seeking money from corporate sponsors, from individuals, to build two recreation centres, one in each community.

    I think it's significant, Mr. Chairman, that the honorary patron for this is our own Governor General, and the two co-chairs of the committee are Brian Tobin, former minister of industry, and John Crosbie, former minister of revenue in Mr. Mulroney's government. Of course, they are working with Larry O'Brien, who is the member for Labrador, and with Ethel Blondin-Andrew, our minister of children's and women's affairs.

    It was a very encouraging ceremony, a very encouraging little meeting, and it pointed out to me how important it is that we get everybody on board to solve this problem. It is an example of two Inuit-named communities--I know they're not directly perhaps under the Indian Act, but they are involved with your department--that are taking the bull by the horns. They're going to raise the money because they realize that unless their children have adequate and useful recreation situations, the gas sniffing won't go away. One thing depends upon the other. The community has to be involved in their own governance and it has to be involved in the responsibility for their own children's upbringing.

    Thank you.

  (1240)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Minister, I was a bit surprised by one of the comments you made. You said that if some members of this committee do not want to change anything, they are simply wrong and that the status quo is not an option. Those are your exact words.

    You also talked about the importance of this committee's work. In meeting with the various First Nations groups and communities, this committee may well hear that aboriginal peoples do not want your bill on governance. That is possible, and I can predict today that we will hear that on several occasions. If that is the case, would you be prepared to withdraw your bill?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: No, I'm not, because I don't believe you will hear that. I think you'll hear what I've been hearing, that the first nations citizens believe the Indian Act is totally inadequate and needs to be changed. I asked the question in Ekos very recently, whether they wanted to scrap it, and only 13% are prepared to do that. Then I asked them very precisely whether they see us focusing on self-government. They saw that as a very low priority because most community members don't believe they have the capacity at this point to move from where they are today right to a self-governing first nation. To some extent, that's a very scary proposition and one that we should recognize and be sensitive to.

    The question you ask is a profound one that I've asked myself many times, and I want to answer it by making this comment for you. Do you know any other minister of the crown who has to work with a piece of legislation that is so archaic and outdated that it's almost embarrassing to talk about and that is before the courts some 200 times?

    We have a moral and a legal obligation as parliamentarians to give Canadians, including first nations Canadians, the best legislative structure that the Canadian Parliament can give them. To argue that if someone says from the leadership perspective, don't do anything, we would withdraw that, I think would be a profound mistake by parliamentarians. I do believe that you can put a piece of legislation in that is sensitive to aboriginal peoples' culture, tradition, and unique governance needs. I think when you see the legislation you will understand that we have listened very carefully during these consultations, contrary to what some people have told you.

    The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: I have a question on the Canadian Polar Commission. I see in the estimates it has an annual budget of $1 million every year, but we're really pressing for more capacity for polar research. Do you anticipate any increase whatsoever for this?

    Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, this is a joint responsibility between ourselves and Foreign Affairs, and I can report to the member that we are in continued conversation and review with the Minister of Foreign Affairs as to the needs of the circumpolar world and the relationship we have and the issues that confront us. I can just say this. If there is a need shown that we need more resources, I'm quite prepared to look at it, but I think the budget is adequate for the things we are doing. If you recall, a number of years ago under Minister Axworthy we did increase extensively the research capacity in northern Canada. I'm hoping this still meets that need; at this point, I've not heard otherwise.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: That takes me to the northern contaminants program. Are there many sites left to be taken care of under this program?

    Mr. Robert Nault: Yes, there are many. We have a tremendous liability. It's considered, I hope, by members to be one of the priorities for me for northern Canada, that we have to have a long-term plan and strategy. We've been working on it for the last number of years. We're now, of course, seeking the financial resources necessary for long-term planning, but in the meantime we have moved some resources to the area of contaminated sites to make sure our legal requirements for maintaining those sites are met, and so far that's the case.

    The Chair: Mr. Mark.

    Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to ask you about the connection of your legislation to the Métis community. As you know, in many areas, and certainly in my riding, Métis communities are almost adjacent to aboriginal communities or reserve communities and have the same needs as the aboriginal community. Certainly in education infrastructure, in the circumstances the communities in Manitoba find themselves in, it is usually due to lack of money to provide things like clean water and sewage. Does your legislation have any effect on the Métis communities?

  (1245)  

    Mr. Robert Nault: No, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't. I don't have the mandate to deal with the Métis, but certainly I have been working with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which also includes the Métis, to allow them to participate in the consultation. In the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples there are many members who are status and so have been involved directly. I hope that will facilitate a learning exercise for us and for the Métis, as to how we might want to work with the provinces in their areas of jurisdiction--which is the Métis, in this case.

    Mr. Inky Mark: I want to ask you about land settlement. I believe the land issue needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. The last time you came to committee you indicated the legal costs were getting astronomical. Will this legislation deal with that whole issue of costs and getting the job done on the land settlements?

    Mr. Robert Nault: On the land side, we will continue to develop a relationship at the negotiating table. Obviously, we are reflecting on both our progress and our frustrations in British Columbia, as you might imagine. We hope to move forward with a plan to improve on our success in British Columbia, because we need modern treaties in areas where there are no treaties at this point.

    On the other hand, where there are specific claims, as in regions like yours and mine, that are already under treaty, we will continue, hopefully, to get that done through the new commission and tribunal, which we'll put forward to you for your review sometime in the not-too-distant future. We hope that will improve our abilities to not end up in court, which is extremely expensive, and I think that'll save us money.

    On the other hand, is governance going to have an impact? I believe, quite frankly, governance will have an impact. If you get the fundamentals right and you start to create an economy, you should, hopefully, reduce the costs on the social side. Our welfare costs are over $1 billion--and growing daily. So we need to find ways to improve the economies of first nations peoples and involve them in the economy.

    In places with a large aboriginal population, like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, those provinces will not be successful if those young aboriginal people are not part of the economy. That's why there's an urgency to this process. It's not whether we do it or whether we don't. The fact is we have no choice. We have to put in place the fundamentals of those institutions that are not there now, and we need to do it in a very respectful, traditional, and cultural manner. But I think we can meet those needs. They're connected very closely together, and I always talk as if they're all interconnected, because I think we, as a government....

    For example, I was telling you about education. We will be entering into a fundamental discussion about education and the needs of first nations children in education. We can't put that off much longer; we're not getting the results we need. We have an obligation, as elected representatives of the people, to make sure that education and the attainment of education by first nations children is the same as for any other Canadian.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Colleagues, we'll do one more round, with a one-minute question. The Minister, if he chooses, will answer them in his closing remarks. Does anyone have a one-minute question? Mr. Bagnell is on the list, and Mr. Chatters. That will be it.

    Mr. Larry Bagnell: I just have a quick question. I had one on implementation, but you answered it.

    It's on self-insured benefits. I've had some concerns with this over the last couple of years. In fact, the past president of our medical association mentioned needing to be able to fax in a form and get the answer back right away, so that they can provide this service. I'm hoping there's a periodic review of those medical benefits so the systems are current and working properly.

  (1250)  

    Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): I have a couple of things. There's one question I would like an answer to, and the other you could perhaps just answer in your closing comments.

    First, I'd say that the expectations in the aboriginal communities in my riding are very high. They're looking with great anticipation to what you come up with, and I give you that encouragement.

    The other one is that I would like some clarification on what happened in Alberta, where the Alberta Minister of Social Services tried to remove authority for child welfare from a first nations band and was unsuccessful. If you could give me some clarity, how did that relationship work?

    Also, you spoke earlier of profound differences that will take a generation to get past on the self-governance thing. Could you point out what those profound differences are that will take that long to get past? Maybe that's an easier question than answer.

    The Chair: Mr. Minister, as you address these questions--if you choose--please present your closing remarks.

    Mr. Robert Nault: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I just want to inform my colleagues--and of course I think Larry is aware--that the non-insured benefits are under the purview of the Minister of Health. I would certainly encourage him, and I will do the same, to continue to work on that particular area, because Minister McLellan is looking, as we all are, at ways to improve our relationship with aboriginal people, whether on the health care side or on the education side or on the question of social services--in this case, child welfare.

    Child welfare, as you know, constitutionally is a provincial jurisdiction, so all child welfare agencies are licensed by the province and funded by the federal government. We have contribution agreements with child welfare agencies on reserve, and sometimes for larger groupings, with the objective of their following provincial legislation in the particular region--in the province you speak of, Alberta.

    The province has the right, if the regulations and/or laws of that particular province are not followed, to pull the licence. That doesn't affect the funding, but obviously it would make some sense that they go hand in hand. We work very closely with the provinces on child welfare, with the objective of protecting our children.

    As I understand the issue, the community is working very closely with the Alberta government in a co-management type of process. There are a few issues with that in the press, but I suspect that's basically the rationale of how they'll approach this, finding ways to improve on their structures, on their regulations, and on their disciplines to make sure children are protected, which is a priority of first nations leaders and of course governments right across the board, and rightfully so. I think they are doing that.

    We run into difficulties from time to time, both in the non-native and native worlds, when it comes to child welfare. It's a very sensitive area of governing. We should all remember this isn't an aboriginal issue per se; we've seen this in the non-native communities as well.

    Mr. Chairman, I have laid out for you a significant vision of where we're going this year. I would expect you will see four to five pieces of legislation in very short order. I hope you'll work very closely with me, because I think the committee has an extremely important role to play.

    I've said to you that under governance there were going to be three phases of consultation. We're entering into the second phase of consultation. Those who have been arguing they haven't been consulted will have great opportunity to be consulted by you and your colleagues as we go down the road, and rightfully so. And they should take the opportunity to allow you to consult them, as I will continue to consult right across the country and keep a very close eye on your work, with the objective of being helpful to you in all cases.

    As you know, I have a personal interest in this. Some people have asked why I'm doing it; some people are opposed. I very much personally believe in what I'm doing. I represent 51 first nations. I have a lot of political issues of my own at stake, so if I'm moving forward, it's because I believe we need to have this discussion.

    We need to do it respectfully. There's no hidden agenda. As you know, it's been very transparent. Just look on our website; you'll find everything I've talked about. What I've told you today isn't a big secret. Just access our website; it's all there for anyone to see.

    On the issue of the other side of our priority, I want to continue to work with you and get your advice on building a first nations economy and getting provinces and other levels of government and the private sector engaged. I think that was the comment Mr. Finlay was making. We can't do this all by ourselves. We need the non-native communities and the private sector engaged in helping first nations and giving them employment.

    There are lots of jobs to be had. In some areas there are not a lot of first nations children and young people working in those jobs, and we have to encourage the private sector to not only train young people but obviously to give them that first chance. We all need the first opportunity to be successful.

    So I want to encourage you to do that, and I thank you again for allowing me to pay you a visit. I think I'll probably be seeing you quite a bit this year as I make presentations on individual legislative initiatives, and I will always be quite willing to give you the straight-up goods, as they say, about where we think we should go. Hopefully, if I'm not on the right track, you will give me advice as to where I should go.

    With that, I want to thank you all for taking your lunch hour to spend time with me.

  (1255)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

    I want to thank you and commend you on the way you have responded to the questions. You were completely honest and you didn't hold back any information, which is the reason we are doing this. You addressed the questions. Your answers were good because the questions were good, and I want to commend my colleagues.

    This committee has the potential to be a disaster with aboriginal affairs, northern development, natural resources, and five political parties around one table. I say to you, Mr. Minister, the members of this committee are doing a serious job. We're putting our politics aside, although our political direction is within us and is maintained. The members of this committee spend a lot of time preparing for these meetings, and I want to commend and thank them.

    The reason for this meeting was to address the estimates. I have received no notice of amendments to the estimates. We therefore consider them as having been dealt with.

    Thank you very much.

    The meeting is adjourned.