AANR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

0905

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

Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

0910

0915

The Chair

Hon. Andy Mitchell

0920

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC)

0925

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

0930

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Andy Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ)

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Serge Cardin

0935

Hon. Andy Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

0940

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Pat Martin

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

0945

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

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

0950

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

Hon. Andy Mitchell

0955

The Chair

Hon. Andy Mitchell

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC)

1000

Hon. Andy Mitchell

1005

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. John Duncan

Hon. Andy Mitchell

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Allan MacDonald (Director, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians Division, Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, Privy Council Office)

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

1010

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Hon. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

1015

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Davis (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

1020

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Ms. Caroline Davis

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Caroline Davis

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Ms. Caroline Davis

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

1025

The Chair

Mr. Allan MacDonald

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Ms. Caroline Davis

1030

The Chair

Mr. Allan MacDonald

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Allan MacDonald

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Allan MacDonald

The Chair

Mr. Allan MacDonald

The Chair

Mr. Allan MacDonald

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Allan MacDonald

1035

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. Allan MacDonald

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. Allan MacDonald

1040

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Allan MacDonald

Mr. John Duncan

1045

The Chair

Mr. Allan MacDonald

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Hon. Larry Bagnell

The Chair

1050

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 007

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)): Good morning. I apologize for being late, I made a mistake and I was in the wrong room. We will make up for it.

On the agenda today, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), Main Estimates 2004-2005, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25 and 30 under the heading “Indian Affairs and Northern Development”, referred to the committee on Tuesday, February 24, 2004, as well as vote 40 under the heading “Privy Council”, referred to the committee on Tuesday, February 24, 2004.

I apologize for being late, Mr. Minister. We will begin immediately with your statement, if you have one, and with a presentation by the staff accompanying you today.

[English]

Hon. Andy Mitchell (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I'm joined by Allan MacDonald and Caroline Davis. I will be making some brief introductory remarks, and then I look forward to questions from the committee.

First of all, I want to thank the committee for giving me an opportunity to be here to talk about the portfolio as well as thank the committee for the work they just recently completed on the Westbank legislation. I appreciate that very much.

As committee members are aware, the government has clearly indicated that aboriginal and northern issues are a key priority of the government. In the Speech from the Throne we outlined some long-term objectives, objectives that are primarily designed to work toward closing the social and economic gaps that exists between aboriginal Canadians and Canadians in general. Some of the expenditures that are outlined in our main estimates and in the budget address some of our strategic investments that we're beginning to make to achieve those results.

I want to take a moment, Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, to talk a little bit in general terms about some of the objectives we're trying to achieve in DIAND and then to talk a little bit about some of the principles we intend to employ in working toward those goals. Then I'll talk a little bit about the estimates.

As I mentioned, if you were to put forward a primary objective, a key objective, it would be the closing of that gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians in terms of social and economic issues. That's a key objective from our perspective, one against which we will measure and judge the actions we take.

I think as a second objective, the building of better and more effective relationships is absolutely essential. From my perspective, there are really two key components that have to be employed when working on aboriginal affairs. First of all, obviously you need good programming, you need good public policy that's designed to achieve the objectives, designed to achieve the closing of that gap. But it's also important that you have good delivery mechanisms for those programs. If you have the best program in the world and you don't have the right relationship or the right structure to deliver it, you won't be able to accomplish your goal. If you have the right structures, if you have the right system, but you don't have a policy to deliver, again you're no further ahead. You really need to make sure you do both.

Moving on, Mr. Chairman, in terms of goals and objectives, I believe it is very important to build the capacity of first nations, to equip them and their members to fully participate in the economic and social wealth of Canada. I believe one of the keys is that of empowerment, of ensuring that first nations and first nations people have the tools they need to achieve that integration, to achieve the ability to work toward closing that gap.

I believe we need to do things in a transformational way. As I may have mentioned to the committee the last time I was here, I was once told--and I agree with this--that the definition of insanity would be doing the same thing in the same way and expecting different results. I don't believe that is an approach that will work. One of the objectives that I believe we need to undertake is to work in a transformational way, to make changes that are different and to take approaches that are different in order to achieve those objectives.

I think in doing that, Mr. Chair, we need to be working on some key drivers of transformational change. By this I mean things like education, early childhood development, economic and community development, and development of key community infrastructure such as housing and water. I think we need to work in as expeditious a way as possible, Mr. Chair, toward settling land claims and establishing self-government.

In trying to achieve these goals and objectives, I think it's important to follow a number of principles that need to govern the way in which we act. The first one, one that I've talked about frequently, is that of a collaborative approach, one of being inclusive as we move forward.

I think it's absolutely essential that aboriginal Canadians, first nations Canadians, be directly involved in the development of policy, be directly involved in the development of those new structures. I think to do otherwise will tend to minimize our opportunity for success, and to engage will maximize that opportunity.

I think it's important that we ensure that the solutions we arrive at reflect the needs and the views of first nations people. When we're trying to deal with the policy issues and the range of items that face first nations people, those solutions need to be reflective of those needs, need to be reflective of those challenges. To do otherwise, again, I believe will diminish the opportunities of success.

I think we need to build that relationship on a shared vision. I believe it's absolutely essential that aboriginal Canadians and the Government Canada will be working towards a shared vision, towards the same objectives, and towards the same goals that will carry on that relationship with respect, and in time, Mr. Chairman, will carry on that relationship in a spirit of trust.

I also believe in the importance, in terms of principles, of a bottom-up approach. All of the solutions to all of the problems and challenges we face are not resident in Ottawa or in a provincial or territorial capital. In large part they are representative and they are in the communities themselves. It is absolutely essential, in my view, that we empower communities so that they can pursue their objectives, so that they can deal with their needs in a way that makes sense in their particular communities.

I also believe, Mr. Chairman, in the importance of building structures in the context of policy development. It is important not to engage in a sterile and endless debate about process, but that we make the process about achieving results in specific policy areas.

To achieve that, Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly in the importance of relationships. I believe that the key to success is the development of appropriate relationships and that the best programs in the world cannot be effectively delivered without those strong relationships.

And in that respect I'm talking about three types of relationships. First of all, it's the relationship that must exist between first nations and the Government of Canada. I believe it is important to establish that through engagement, and I have worked, since assuming this portfolio, to engage aboriginal Canadians, first nations Canadians across this country, both with individuals as well as with the communities and the organizations that represent them.

I think in terms of the relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada, I would like to stress the importance of dealing with self-government and the need to find a quicker way of resolving our land claims and of developing self-government. With the track we're on right now, we would be centuries before we accomplish that task. As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, we need to deal with the historic agreements that exist and have existed now for over a century.

The second relationship, and I think one that's important, is between the Government of Canada and other public institutions, primarily the provinces and the territories. This is important as we collaborate on the delivery of services, as we deal with the utilization and the maximization of natural resources.

The third relationship that I think is key, Mr. Chair, is the relationship that exists within the Government of Canada. As I've mentioned at this committee before, there are a large number of departments engaged on the aboriginal file. It is important to try to move away from a stove-pipe approach and try to ensure that the machinery of government is structured in a way that will allow us to coordinate our response to the issues facing aboriginal Canadians.

You will probably notice, Mr. Chair--and committee members will have noticed--some of the strategic investments that are in the main estimates we are studying here today. There is some $495 million in the estimates of new investments, and they reflect primarily commitments that were made in previous budgets that are coming on stream in this fiscal year. There is $226 million, Mr. Chair, for specific and comprehensive claims. These estimates are based on agreements that we have been in a position to negotiate and to sign and which we expect we will be able to act on in the upcoming fiscal year, starting on April 1.

There is also an $84 million increase. This represents our adjustment to ongoing programs to reflect increasing costs of delivering those programs.

There is also a new $80 million investment in water and water infrastructure; $65.9 million is going to be going to education. This is primarily in terms of special education for individuals on reserve.

¿ (0910)

There is a $26 million increase in terms of infrastructure, commonly referred to as dealing with some of the rust-out issues, and a $12 million investment in the northern food mail program, which is an important program to provide food in the north.

The budget, Mr. Chairman, also dealt with some key investments in aboriginal affairs: $125 million for the aboriginal human resources strategy; $20 million for the urban aboriginal strategy; a little over $20 million to help develop our relationship with the Métis, primarily discussing the Powley decision; and some $5.5 million for the development of the First Nations Governance Institute.

I would be remiss, Mr. Chair, if I didn't also mention some key investments on the other side of the portfolio, that is on the northern side. I'm very pleased to see the $3.5 billion commitment to deal with contaminated sites. More than half of those sites are north of 60 and fall within the responsibility of my department. I am pleased to see those resources coming forward to deal with them.

There is also a change in the territorial transfer, and I suspect my two colleagues on the left may be very pleased to see the $150 million increase in transfers to territorial governments. Plus, there is a $90 million commitment for the development of the northern economic development strategy. I'm very pleased that my colleague and parliamentary secretary, Mr. Bagnell, is in the process of consulting across the north to determine the best way and the best structure for these new funds. As well, there is the $75 million commitment to help the development of hydrocarbons north of 60.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I think it's fair to say that progress is being achieved, but in my view the pace is not quick enough. We need to quicken that pace.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that new investments must be transformational and must be complemented by more effective delivery structures. Transformational change, Mr. Chairman, I believe, requires renewed and new relationships with first nations, key societal partners like provinces and territories, and within the federal government itself.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to your questions.

¿ (0915)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Before beginning the question period, I would like to ask you a really important question.

On page 5 of your statement, you say:“we have shared priorities”. You have indicated that housing is the first priority. We know that the Northern Inuit, the first nations of Canada and the James Bay Cree, who are not part of the first nations, really have a serious housing problem. I feel that this is the number one priority because we know that right now—and I will conclude with this subject since I do not want to use up all of the members' time—in some places, 16 or 18 people are living in the same house. That may be all right in the summer, but in winter, there are four or five students sharing the same bedroom. This is really unacceptable. If we do not build houses, there is a social issue. Many people are sick and do not go to school, so there is the matter of education. There's also the economic issue. You refer to housing, but I do not see, in the financial priority that you mentioned, how much money is earmarked for housing for the Inuit, the first nations and the Métis of Canada. I would like you to talk a bit about this.

[English]

Hon. Andy Mitchell: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that housing is a key priority. In my opening comments, when I talked about the need to develop infrastructure, I included housing as one of the key priorities in that respect. Dealing with housing is indeed a collaborative approach, which needs to take place. It includes the Department of Indian Affairs. I believe our expenditures are something in the order of about $138 million per year. There is also spending, obviously, through CMHC, which spends or provides a considerable amount of support. I believe that since 1996, between CMHC and Indian Affairs, the figure for expenditures on housing is somewhere around the $2 billion mark. I should also mention that Infrastructure Canada has also engaged in housing, in terms of an agreement with Nunavut to develop housing.

As we move forward, I think it comes to the point that I was trying to make that, yes, new investments are going to be important, but it's also going to be important to have the types of structures in place that will allow us to utilize those dollars in the most effective way for creating new housing.

In my view, housing or dealing with housing falls into two broad categories. There's the issue of social housing. There are parts of this nation, and there are first nations and other aboriginal communities, where social housing is going to be a key component of a housing policy. There are going to have to be direct investments in that respect.

Second, though, I think there is an opportunity—which we're working with the Assembly of First Nations on—to develop new structures that would be applicable to providing an opportunity for the private sector to participate in the development of housing, or to create market-like processes on some first nations that will allow for the development of housing. I believe these need to be accomplished through institutes and through structures that first nations themselves have control of. I think that's part of the solution.

I think it's important, though, Mr. Chairman, that we make a distinction that not one solution will work everywhere. There's a very different reality in northern Ontario, where I come from, from the area in northern Quebec, where you come from, Mr. Chairman, and from some of our other communities that may be closer to an urban-adjacent type of situation. We need to tailor our solutions to reflect that.

Yes, it's an important priority. There have been substantial investments in the past, and we need to continue to make investments in the future. But in my mind, we also need to deal with the structures through which that investment will flow to get the maximum effect, and to engage as many partners as possible in doing that.

¿ (0920)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I appreciate the fact that you are aware of the housing issue.

We will now begin the question period.

Mr. Vellacott.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being with us today.

One of the things that I think both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people have as an ongoing concern across the country is that despite all the billions of dollars, including $8 billion in planned spending for aboriginals in this fiscal year, we don't see a lot of significant improvement. I guess we do in pieces and pockets here and there, but the overall picture has not changed.

I think that causes a great deal of concern for a lot of people. For the dollars invested, aboriginal people want there to be significant change. I know it's a long-term thing, but definitely that's a question we have to be asking in terms of value for dollar and objectives achieved.

In terms of changing that disadvantage, one of those issues that occurs to me, and I think to a lot of us, including you as well, Mr. Minister, I would think, is the issue of education. You know, I think it's a truism that if we can provide help along the lines of post-secondary education and so on, we do give a hand up more than a handout. It's supposedly one of your department's highest priorities, again acknowledged in the recent Speech from the Throne. In the department's 2003-04 report on plans and priorities, the minister at that time made it clear that investment in post-secondary education was essential to first nations youth, that they deserved opportunities to reach their potential and fulfill their highest aspirations.

In the particular budget we have now, 2004-05, the main estimates remain unchanged with respect to funding for post-secondary education. And that's been the same for several years now. Can you tell me, with those stated commitments to increase in order to help them reach potential and fulfill their highest aspirations, why we don't see any difference in terms of actual dollar figures attached here?

It is an issue across the country, as you are well aware. Your government has been lambasted by some who say that this whole area for youth across our country needs to change because we're going to fall behind other countries. In this area it's going to be a widening gap. I often hear reports in my riding and across the country, especially on reserves where there's a limited pot of money, if you will, about the acrimony when those scarce dollars for post-secondary education provide for only four or five students when maybe a dozen or whatever are coming to post-secondary education.

It is a problem. Despite what some people think in our country, that all aboriginals are funded for post-secondary education to the full extent, I know that is not the case.

So can you tell me why there is this contradiction in terms of your stated objectives but no change in estimates for post-secondary education?

¿ (0925)

Hon. Andy Mitchell: Certainly. Let me begin, though, by talking to your original comment.

I don't believe it is fair to say there has been no progress made. If you look over the last 30 years, the gap that I talked about has been narrowed. The issue is that one still exists, and the job isn't accomplished until we can close that gap.

I'm very frank, as the minister, to say there is a gap. There is work that needs to be done. We're not satisfied with the situation as it exists today, but it would be unfair to say the gap has not been closed and progress has not been made.

I just want to make that clear, because sometimes in trying to address the challenges that we continue to face, we overlook some of the accomplishments that indeed have been achieved in the past.

In terms of education, you've pointed out a specific problem--the terms of allocation within a particular first nations reserve--and you've talked in terms of the kinds of dollars that don't provide every student the opportunity to go there.

Here's the point I was trying to make in my introductory comments: There are two parts to trying to address this issue. One part has to do with developing the right delivery mechanism, the types of institutions or the types of structures that we believe need to be in place to most effectively provide quality, ongoing post-secondary education to first nations students. It is absolutely essential to get that right. Once you've done that, then making new investments, and increased investments, makes a lot more sense.

It goes back to my phraseology before. If you do things in the same way and over time you just continue to do it and expect different results, you're probably going to find yourself disappointed. So one of the things we're committed to doing as a government--and we're going to work with first nations people themselves--is to work on that delivery mechanism so that when we make increased investments, they'll be effective.

I'll give you an example--and those of us from rural areas understand this because it's a similar type of issue. It's not simply good enough to provide tuition dollars to allow somebody to go to post-secondary education; once they arrive there, there is a significant need to provide an environment and the support to allow that individual student to succeed. It's a major significant change to go from what is normally a small community, oftentimes a rural community, and be put into an environment of a large learning institution. We need to make sure that part of our solution is to create the types of supports within that institution or those institutions that will allow them to succeed, because it just isn't good enough to get them there; it's good enough to get them to graduate.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I understand.

If I can just quickly interject, I'd like to ask a question. Have you actually done as a department or signalled to your officials to do a calculation in terms of all the aboriginal students under your jurisdiction, those who are eligible for post-secondary education and want to go on but are unable to receive funding? Do you have any figures on that, those who are actually denied funding under your jurisdiction, who cannot go because there's just not enough money there? How many are turned away?

Hon. Andy Mitchell: I don't have that, but I'd be happy to get you the figures.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Could you provide those figures to the committee? That would be appreciated.

In terms of the formula itself, the resources budgeted by the department, if you don't have an increase, but you have a burgeoning aboriginal population and inflation costs and so on as well with tuition, how would you expect to even meet those numbers or have adequately covered those in the past, when we have the increase in population and the increase in tuition costs and schooling costs for post-secondary? How can we possibly expect to do as well on the same budgeted moneys?

¿ (0930)

Hon. Andy Mitchell: First of all, as I mentioned in my opening comments, we do have a standard escalator there. I think it's some $86 million for this year. But I'm not trying to make the case--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: For post-secondary education?

Hon. Andy Mitchell: It's for all of our--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: But there's no increase for post-secondary education.

Hon. Andy Mitchell: It's an increase for basic programs of which education is one. So there is an escalator there. But I'm not trying to make the case, Mr. Vellacott, that there may not be a need for increased investments. I concur with you, but I absolutely believe it is essential to make sure we have the delivery structure correct so that we maximize the impact of any new investments.

That requires an amount of work to be done. It's an amount of work that needs to be done not just within the department but in engaging first nations communities and individuals and their organizations to determine what would be the best way to do it. It's important, as I said, to do both things. We must make new investments, but also make sure that the structures you have for delivery and the means of delivery are created, or revised, in a way that will maximize the benefit of that investment.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to replace, at a moment's notice, my colleague who normally looks after aboriginal affairs, but in reading the briefing notes provided by the Library of Parliament, one question springs to mind. The notes state that the budgets allotted for consultations and policy development have practically doubled, jumping from $15,524,000 to $31,610,000 in 2004-2005. When you examine the amounts for "consultations and policy development", does the department, which invests $5.8 billion in aboriginal affairs, still not know the main areas where it should be focusing in order to develop policies?

What exactly does the department intend to do by doubling its budget for consultations and policy development? Are we still missing information in order to set policies that will ensure that the aboriginal people are getting good value for their money?

[English]

Hon. Andy Mitchell: I don't believe we have all the answers. I don't believe we have a complete body of knowledge that would indicate just how we should proceed.

I think we do need to engage first nations and other aboriginal Canadians. In order to engage them it is going to be critical that they have the capacity to be part of that engagement. If you simply go to an organization and say, I want your opinion on something, and that organization has no ability to consult its members, has no ability to do some of its own research, or some of its own work, you're not going to have very much of a dialogue. So the idea of having a consultative process and that there's a cost involved in that consultative process I think is reasonable. What wouldn't be reasonable is that you have a never-ending discussion that never results in any kind of action. To me that would be difficult to try to deal with.

I can provide the committee with a breakdown of the different types of broad areas in which the consultation took place. For instance, there are items in terms of climate change that were done last year in the consultations on that; there was work done on first nations governance; there is support in there for the provincial-territorial organizations that represent first nations; and there are others. I would be happy to provide you with a breakdown of the various types of consultative processes we engage in.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: The department has a total budget of $5.8 billion, of which $537 million is earmarked for operating expenditures. You will excuse me, but this is not my main area of responsibility, so I have some questions that may, to you, appear to be a bit simplistic, but I would still like to ensure that I have understood things correctly. The operating expenditures are nevertheless quite high: they comprise nearly 10% of the department's total budget. So there are public servants who work within all of that, probably implementing various programs.

How autonomous are the aboriginal people with respect to these budgets, which for all intents and purposes are made available to them, taking into account the “control” of the public servants or the department with respect to the operational side? This question is in conjunction with the one I asked earlier about consultation and policy development. How autonomous are the aboriginal people within this entire process, which, in our opinion, is an investment and not an expenditure?

¿ (0935)

[English]

Hon. Andy Mitchell: Not enough yet.

Take the Indian Act as an example. I think there are many people around this table who would suggest that is an antiquated, outdated, outmoded piece of legislation and it needs to be, in time, replaced with other things. We do need to work in that direction to provide the type of autonomy that you suggest. I call it empowering the communities; you call it autonomy. We're talking about the same issue.

I'm always, probably based on my previous life before coming to this place, very concerned with administrative expenses. As you know, the government is going through a process. We will participate in that as a department as well, and if there are administrative changes that can be made to maximize our resources, we'll obviously do that.

But as you point out, there is a significant budget involved here. There is a need to ensure there are the proper processes in place. It requires that the staff and the processes be there, and that deals with money. But you're right to point out that as we can provide for the development of first nations institutions, as we can provide for self-government, as we can provide for a number of these things, less and less of that will have to be done within the Department of Indian Affairs and more and more of it will be done by first nations themselves.

There's a certain saving that will be achieved in there, but we shouldn't forget that in providing that empowerment, in certain respects we're also going to have to provide resources to allow first nations and aboriginal Canadians to carry out that function.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here.

Mr. Minister, I'd like to start from the basic premise that your department is grossly underfunded--ridiculously underfunded. You've been left with the unenviable task of essentially being the minister to manage poverty amongst first nations and to rob Peter to pay Paul to try to meet some, but not all, of the basic needs of the many aboriginal people who fall under your jurisdiction.

Let's look at the $5.8 billion. It sounds like a staggering amount of money, and most Canadians think it is until you divide it up. It works out to roughly $7,000 per person for the people who fall under your jurisdiction--in fact, even less. You could even say there are a million people affected; if you have $5.8 billion, that's $5,800 per head.

The Province of Manitoba spends more than that just on high school education per person. We spend $7,200 per kid in high school. You're spending $5,800 per person to meet every one of their basic needs from housing to income, to clothing, to education, to infrastructure, to sewage and water, to road building, and to transportation. It can't be done. It's a recipe for social tragedy. It's a recipe for social disaster, which is what we've experienced in the 140 years of misery that is the experience of the Indian Act.

I guess your coming to us with these estimates is either an admission of failure or a statement that your government is prepared to take responsibility for the sum total of misery that can't even be calculated in terms of lost opportunity and lives wasted. We have to start from that premise when you come here with this set of estimates.

The second thing is, these estimates are redundant. We've been told now that this three-inch book of main estimates will be withdrawn and a new set of estimates will be submitted after the break. Is this not a futile exercise to even argue about your estimates when your estimates, by your Treasury Board president's own admission, are null and void?

Maybe you can help shed some light for the Canadian public, because the Canadian public is arguing like crazy. We need $2 billion immediately for the military. They get $12 billion to serve the needs of 50,000 people; only 4,000 or 5,000 are combat-ready, but there are 50,000 people, and they're going to get $2 billion just like that. You have $5.8 billion to deal with the quality of life of a million people.

What did you say at the cabinet table to address this reality? Did you say, double my budget because people are starving out there from a lack of basic services, because people are living in rotting homes covered with mould, with 16 people to a house? Did you say anything about cutting the head start program in northern Ontario, the one early childhood development initiative that actually shows some promise and gives some hope in terms of getting kids off to a good start in life, yet $11 million of it is being slashed in northern Ontario?

What case did you make to your fellow cabinet ministers? That you've been put in charge of managing misery and you want that to change? Did you say anything to that effect? Did you make the comparison between spending $12 billion on the military and only $5.8 billion on every Indian in the country?

That's where I'd like to start. How do you defend a $5.8 billion budget? When you add it all up, it equals Canada's greatest shame, the greatest social tragedy in the history of the western world, an international embarrassment to Canada. You're in charge of the most embarrassing thing about Canada, about the country we love and are so proud of. You have been put in charge of Canada's greatest failure and Canada's greatest shame. How do you feel about that when it comes to presenting a budget here with these modest, timid 1% and 2% increases here and there?

¿ (0940)

Hon. Andy Mitchell: I'll stay away from some of the rhetoric and deal with some of the issues there, Mr. Chair.

First of all, as you're aware, Mr. Martin, the $5.8 billion that is under DIAND is not the sum total of the federal government's investments in aboriginal affairs, and one of the issues I spoke about at the beginning is the fact that there are a large number of departments, some 14, and I believe the total investment is somewhere in the order of $8.8 billion across the government. So it's substantially higher than the amount you've suggested.

Second, I believe if you take a look at the estimates and take a look at the funding levels for the Department of Indian Affairs alone, you'll find there's a 9% increase. So what you may define as paltry is in fact a 9% increase. All individuals would always like to see more resources put toward something, but in fact that's the reality that's taking place.

Some of the dollars--and I reference this--that are coming on with these estimates are indications that have been made in the past, and we are now coming into receipt of the funding to deal with issues, some of the ones you've suggested.

I would also say--

Mr. Pat Martin: Specifically, Mr. Minister, how much is being spent on the fiscal institution?

Hon. Andy Mitchell: Mr. Chair, I'd like to finish my response.

Mr. Pat Martin: This is the one opportunity we get to ask questions, and you get to talk all the time. We get seven minutes once in a while to speak. I have one specific question with what time I have left, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have one minute left.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

Bill C-23 is the enabling legislation that will allow the creation of the four fiscal institutions--the taxation commission, etc. How come I'm being lobbied by full-time salaried staff of those institutions if they don't exist yet? How much of the budget goes to the offices, the business cards, the telephone bills, the travel expenses of all these employees of these four fiscal institutions that don't exist because we've never passed Bill C-19 or Bill C-23?

Where in the budget do we find that, how much are you spending on it, and by what authority are you spending that money?

¿ (0945)

Hon. Andy Mitchell: Maybe you're not aware, Mr. Martin, but most of the functions these institutions will become responsible for are at present allowed for or dealt with under the Indian Act, and there are organizations that assist the Department of Indian Affairs in achieving its mandate under the Indian Act.

The issue with the establishment of the institutions--and one that I know you've spoken to in the past--is that the Indian Act is not a particularly effective piece of legislation, and the importance is to bring those entities, those processes, out from under the Indian Act and establish independent institutions. So to answer your question, it's under the authority of the Indian Act.

Mr. Pat Martin: Why do you need the legislation if you're already doing it?

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Martin. I would like to give the other members an opportunity to speak.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell, please.

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.) (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you, and thank you, Minister, for coming to the committee this morning.

I represent a riding that is predominantly Inuit, but every time we see documentation coming out of your department, we see a lot of reference to first nations. We feel we're excluded from a lot of the policies and funding allocated to the aboriginal people of Canada.

Inuit are taxpayers in this country and they want to participate in all the different initiatives for the country. We want to be part of the solution. Yes, hearing the rhetoric is very tiring for us too. We want to feel that we're part of the peoples of the country and have something to contribute.

It's a little disheartening for students to sit and listen to some rhetoric that I feel doesn't have a place any more, because we want to be part of building this country, to be part of the solution, and not to be made to feel we're the problem. As taxpayers in this country we want to contribute, and yet we need the resources to do that.

We talked at the last meeting about Inuit having to be part of the workforce in the Government of Nunavut, but we can't achieve that unless we have the resources to educate the young people to be part of the solution.

In the Auditor General's report we heard about how we'd like to look at a resource- or a results-based policy for implementation.

So my question really is, how do we get Inuit to participate in this country? How do we get those tools and the capacity building you talked about if we don't get the resources to educate and, yes, to have money for post-secondary education?

We're working with the land claims body and we're working with the Government of Nunavut, but there have been some roadblocks in the implementation talks that look at trying to transfer some of that money to the people who need it the most.

One of the questions I had from the students who are here--and I'll just read it because I want to make sure one of their questions is put in. Their question is:

If the minister agrees with the Auditor General, will the minister support the call for a new implementation policy focusing on objectives and results, and will the minister insist that a policy be drafted outside of the department, perhaps by this committee or by the new cabinet committee on aboriginal affairs?

That's a question coming directly from the students. I want to make sure they get an answer.

You and I have talked about how we need to make sure that the people who are beneficiaries of the land claims agreement benefit from the resources allocated by INAC.

Thank you.

¿ (0950)

Hon. Andy Mitchell: Without trying to sound like I'm using rhetoric, Inuit are part of the solution, they're not part of the problem, and that's the approach I take. You're correct in pointing out that for the Inuit who are north of 60, which is a good percentage, the process of funding is somewhat different because in many respects the funding is through territorial government transfers, which in turn provide the benefits. That's different from our mandate south of 60. The increase in the territorial transfers, the establishment of northern economic development funding, and the regularization of the extra dollars for health care are very positive approaches that are going to have a direct impact.

In terms of needing to deal with results as well as obligations, I think that both need to be dealt with. When you sign an agreement, you create a series of actions that you need to undertake. Both parties would normally agree on those actions. Obviously, you need to work toward achieving those. But it's also important that the parties sit down and say we set these objectives and this series of actions that we hoped would achieve those objectives, and it's important that we evaluate and determine whether meeting those obligations is in fact achieving the results. If they're not achieving the results, then we need to have a discussion amongst ourselves. Are there different things that the federal government, the territorial government, and the land claim organizations can do? We need to come to a consensus that we're not getting where we want to go within the timeframe we set and therefore we may need to do things differently. But we need to do that collaboratively and collectively in order to achieve that. So yes, the objectives are as important as the obligations.

There is a particular issue in Nunavut, which you and I have talked about before, and that's the renewal of the agreement. I want to work hard on that. I've spoken to the new premier, and I've met with NTI. I intend to travel to Nunavut sometime in the next month to continue those discussions directly and to give it my personal attention to drive this process forward. The desire to have more Inuit people involved in the public service of the territory is, I think, an important objective. We need to work collectively to find a way to achieve better results than we've been able to achieve to date.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Do I have any time left?

The Chair: You have half a second.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Maybe I'll save it for the next round.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: The other area we've talked about is benefiting from the resources. We know that a lot of exploration is going on in the north. What mechanisms do we have that will ensure that the people benefit from those resources in the north? I'm looking at natural resources.

Hon. Andy Mitchell: I believe the medium-term solution--I think it would be unfair to characterize it as a long-term solution--is to move toward devolution in all of our territories. We accomplished that in the Yukon. We just signed a framework agreement in the NWT to move in that direction and to begin negotiations. One of the things I intend to talk to the premier about when we meet is trying to get our collective minds around a process that will lead toward devolution in Nunavut. I think that needs to be our objective. I think that's the way of ensuring that the natural resource benefit will go to the territory.

I don't want to be unrealistic. Serious discussions and certain serious activity need to take place to achieve that. But I can say clearly--and I've said this to the premier--that I am committed to engaging in that process and to doing it in as expeditious a way as we possibly can.

¿ (0955)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

How much time do you have, Mr. Minister?

[English]

Hon. Andy Mitchell: My schedule was from 9 to 10, and I have other things scheduled, Mr. Chair. I could probably stay for maybe five or six more minutes, but then I definitely need to be on my way.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before I turn the floor over to Mr. Duncan, I would like to point out, Mr. Minister, that we have just had a history lesson from the Inuit member for Nunavut. When we talk about the first nations in Canada's national programs and in speeches, I hope that you and the officials accompanying you have understood that we must at least mention the word "Inuit". I would also hope that the senior officials and all the officials from the Department of Indian Affairs will understand this in future.

Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the Minister.

I have several questions, but I can address some of them to your officials, so I'll prioritize two questions for you, Minister.

First, I want to say that I respect what Nancy had to say very much, in terms of being part of the solution, not part of the problem.

On the other hand, I think we all recognize that there are going to be a lot of bands that are continuing to operate under the Indian Act for the foreseeable future. We can't describe the current activities of your department without taking that into account.

One significant concern I have, under the protocols that have been developed over time with your department and with other federal departments, is that there is a circumstance currently at play where there's a vacuum in accountability, in some situations, which has social costs attached to it. The circumstance I can point to very clearly is the fact that, for example, in an isolated community that is running their own school, where Health Canada goes in and does inspections on a regular basis, the inspections indicate there are significant shortcomings in the school that are putting children potentially at risk, but there is no enforcement capability, other than through the band council. If they choose not to exercise it, there is no mandate anywhere.

This situation was described to me. I brought it up in the House of Commons. The principal of the school knew that by doing so, she would be fired. She was fired. Now everything is papered over. There's no whistle-blower protection for that individual. The status quo has been re-established, but the problems, in all likelihood, persist.

You described insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a better result. In my view, that's exactly what's occurring here. I'm not saying this is rampant, but there is the opportunity for these kinds of occurrences to persist. I don't believe your department has adequately addressed that kind of situation.

That's my first question.

We are talking about estimates. I would like to talk about another uncomfortable circumstance that relates to the fact that the minister, your predecessor, was written to about the circumstances by which the former chief at Manitoba Lake was the grand chief of the Southern Chiefs Organization in Manitoba. She had been charged with fraud and theft while on the books of Manitoba Lake. She has now, as of the last couple of days, pleaded guilty to theft. In the lead-up to that, the minister was asked to address this issue because she had a lot of authority while grand chief of the Southern Chiefs Organization. There were many allegations that travel to Florida, Las Vegas, and Europe by people associated with that office was coming out of the political lobbying funds of that organization.

À (1000)

Basically, anything goes, and when the minister was asked to intervene, the answer was that as long as it was before the courts, he couldn't do that. It's still before the courts, but there's been a guilty plea. What plans do you have to address that issue and the broader issue at work here?

Hon. Andy Mitchell: Let me deal with some specifics and then some general things. First, on the specifics of the incident at the school, I will look into that, Mr. Duncan. I will get back to you directly on that.

Next are the issues of what I think we would characterize as governance issues, the principles of accountability, transparency, effectiveness, and efficiency. From what I've been able to determine since I've been minister and then before that as a parliamentarian, those are principles almost everybody shares. In fact, I haven't met anybody who would be opposed to those kinds of principles. So I think there isn't much of a discussion about the need to do that or the importance of having those component parts there. I've made a commitment quite publicly to engage in trying to deal with these issues and to see what types of approaches may come from that engagement. In so doing, I've also indicated I'm not particularly interested in a never-never discussion that goes on and on and doesn't come forward with something, and I intend to do that.

I think it's also important to recognize something here on the points you've made. On a first nations reserve, just like anywhere else in the country, if somebody is committing an illegal act, then they will be subject to the full sanction of the law. It makes no difference whether you commit that illegal act in a first nations community or whether you commit it in a non-first nations community; illegality is illegality, and people who are convicted face the consequences of that. In those few instances where something like that occurs, the first nations community itself--if it happens to be within a first nations community--will certainly address the ramifications that may have caused.

I appreciate, Mr. Duncan, your comment when you said this is not widespread, that this is an isolated incident, and I think that's important to emphasize, but the law is the law regardless of where you are.

À (1005)

[Translation]

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

Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Your time is up.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: So we'll have more time for questions for the officials?

[Translation]

The Chair: Will your officials, Ms. Davis and Mr. Horgan, stay here? Seront-ils présents durant la séance?

[English]

Hon. Andy Mitchell: The deputy and I have to go off to something else, but Ms. Davis will stay.

Mr. John Duncan: Question 42 from the House of Commons has been referred back to the committee. It went unanswered, and I was told that Mr. MacDonald could respond to that.

Hon. Andy Mitchell: Yes, I'm sorry. Mr. MacDonald can stay as well.

Mr. John Duncan: Are you familiar with what I'm referring to?

Mr. Allan MacDonald (Director, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians Division, Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, Privy Council Office): Yes, I am, Mr. Duncan.

Perhaps by way of introduction, it should be clear that my name is Allan MacDonald and that I'm the director of the federal interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians division of the Privy Council Office. In that respect I'm here representing Minister Denis Coderre, who's the federal interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians.

Your question—

[Translation]

The Chair: I apologize, but before we hear the next witness, we must follow the procedure. We are going to deal with question No. 42, but first of all, before we deal with this question and hear from the next witness, we will examine vote 1 of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I will read the list and we will deal with this immediately.

Shall vote 1, of the amount of $537,665,000 less the amount of $448,054,166.66 granted in Interim Supply [as reduced] carry?

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I guess I didn't recognize what the agenda was here. I indicated that I had further questions after the minister departed. I had more than just question No. 42, still related to the estimates.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Duncan, if I take a good look at the agenda that we agreed to at the start, I note that we began by hearing from the minister on the main estimates. I did in fact mention, at the beginning, the main estimates, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25 and 30, and I clearly specified at the beginning what the agenda was. Question No. 42 is in the same vein and this is why I have it here. The clerk told me that we could talk to the main witness who was to appear in the second part, namely when item 2 was being reviewed, but we have not yet reached this point. We are presently reviewing item 1 of the agenda, which I read at the start of the meeting: pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), and there follow all of the main estimates. We are now dealing with votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25 and 30. We will be continuing in this order.

I apologize, Mr. Duncan, but I did state this clearly at the start. This is why we are going to deal with that matter. Then we will deal with the second witness and go on to your question No. 42, which was not on the agenda but which will be mentioned. Rest assured that before 11 o'clock, we will deal with question No. 42, which is an order of reference from the House of Commons, because you did not receive a response within the 45-day time limit.

Mr. Vellacott.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess his question was, do we have further opportunity with respect to estimates—the first part, never mind getting into question No. 42—to ask questions? It would be kind of a moot point later, after we've gone through and passed all this, would it not? He's allowed the officials to remain. Can we not ask questions of them before we move and carry these particular...

Mr. John Duncan: My point is that I have a technical question on the estimates. I didn't ask it, because a technical question is not the kind of question you address to the minister. We have the officials here now. We have $30 million in forgiven loan payments to three individuals. I wouldn't mind asking who those individuals are, for example. It's identified in the estimates.

[Translation]

The Chair: When you talk about the $30 million, to which sector are you referring? Loans?

À (1010)

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, forgiven or uncollectable.

[Translation]

The Chair: I was following the agenda. Listen, when you follow the agenda, you can see that we are now dealing with the votes. We either adopt the vote or we reduce the amount; we can reduce it.

We are going back to vote 1. Shall vote 1, of the amount of $537,665,000, less the amount of $448,054,166.67 granted in Interim Supply [as reduced] carry?

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: On a point of order, does somebody have a different agenda from mine? Mine doesn't indicate any breakdown. I understood that the minister was leaving, but there's no indication here that at 10 o'clock we have to go to the votes on the estimates. Is there something that somebody else has that I don't?

From 9 o'clock to 11 we have two items—

Mr. John Duncan: Yes, I'm totally surprised also.

[Translation]

The Chair: I understand. We didn't note when all the members were going to speak either, but if I look at this closely, Mr. Vellacott, you can see vote 1 to which I've just referred. We were going to go to item 2, that we see in another space, vote 40 for the Privy Council. This is why I was following the agenda that you all have in both official languages. I was following the agenda to deal with item 2. I am anxious to get to item 2, and, you will note, to deal with your question, but I was following the agenda, and you have it just as I do. If you look at what comes before item 2, you can see that there are some votes, I believe there are seven of them. I was following the agenda which was already there. No one said at the beginning that he wanted to carry the votes after item 2.

Go ahead, Mr. Vellacott.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I guess my question was if we have questions to put to the senior officials, who are here, why don't we put those questions now? Does it say anywhere that we have to go at 10:15 to carrying these issues? I mean, let's do it at 10:30, or 10:35, or whenever.

Do you know what I'm asking? Where on the agenda does it say that at 10:15 we must go to carrying these votes? Why can't we complete the issues from the first part?

[Translation]

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Vellacott, we will deal immediately with the questions. It is 10:15. I will agree to this, but at 10:30, we will vote on the matter. All right?

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell, you have three minutes.

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Did Mr. Vellacott finish his question?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Well, no. Mr. Duncan had some technical questions of the officials. I don't know if others do.

Hon. Larry Bagnell: I'll let Mr. Duncan go first.

[Translation]

The Chair: No. I apologize, but it is Mr. Laliberte's turn.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the officials--the Privy Council and DIAND officials together here--in terms of addressing the relationship with the aboriginal nations and the tribes of this country, there has been a misconception of who the real Indians are. This definition is not only erroneous, but there's a grave mistake of labelling the aboriginal people of this island as Indians. But we're on the close of the indigenous decade. Why can't Canada correct this definition?

The Indian Act creates band councils, which is the community level, but where in reference does Canada have the tribes and nations? Maybe that's where the identity crisis can be solved.

When you look at section 35 of the Constitution, it defines the Inuit as a specific original nation of this land and the Métis as an identified nation of this land. Then it defines first nations and Indians, but there are specific nations there: the Cree, the Mohawk, the Oneida, the Tlingit. Can we address that?

Your department has two sides, Indian affairs and northern affairs. The definition of the north is also suspect, because in my definition, I live in northern Canada, but I'm in northern Saskatchewan. The federal government does not define me in that north.

So I think if we're going to go forward with all the allocations of money, of resources, and engaging our aboriginal people and where they live, maybe we should step back and go back to the appropriate definition so everybody knows who they are and where they are.

It's a very fundamental question, but the reason I bring this is because this is the close of the indigenous decade, and we want to show the world who we are. Maybe Canada has to do its homework in redefining who the aboriginal nations are, the first nations, that they're not just specific band councils--there are 630 band councils--that there are tribes and groupings, and those groupings should be given the proper respect, because that's where the inherent rights are. There are gifts of languages, responsibilities that are carried through there, and maybe the fiscal and accountability responsibilities can flow through that, where if band councils are errant in funding, maybe the tribal council can be the disciplinarian, and if the tribal council is errant, then the nation can come down and discipline those three orders of government, as you have with federal, provincial, and municipal governance.

If a municipal government breaks the law, the provincial government steps in; if the provincial government breaks any agreements, the federal government steps in. There are three distinct orders on the aboriginal side as well, but we fail to recognize the critical ones, the nations and the tribes. We look at the community aspects all the time.

I just want to raise an issue on the other aspect of contributing to a national vision. Last year we came through an international year of fresh water. Well, most of the first nations are based on rivers, and there are Inuit communities and Métis communities all over the map. Why couldn't we use them as a national water monitoring system? Most of them have health clinics; they have the ability to take samples and monitor this. Maybe it can be used as a complement to the national strategy. Instead of a self-government only for aboriginal use, this would be for national use.

So these are specific issues. The other one I want to address is that nationally I think there's one capacity that's missing. It's the treaty and land claim commissioners. This title of commissioner was used in the engagement of treaty with the original nations. Originally, in the treaty-making process, a treaty commissioner was sent out on behalf of the crown, but after the treaties were signed, the crown administered and implemented these treaties. Maybe there should be a national treaty land claim commissioner used as a dispute resolution system, or else the meaning and intent of these treaty and land claims can come back for clarification to this.

I'm trying to look at national solutions to this. It may be a little bit off the estimates, but I think it would correct a lot of the relationships and provide a lot of the solutions we need.

À (1015)

I'll leave it at that.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laliberte.

Ms. Davis.

[English]

Ms. Caroline Davis (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): I think if the minister were here he would mention that he's very much in favour of a collaborative approach as we move forward. So defining nations, tribes, various aggregations of first nations who want to move forward on various items of the agenda is, I think, something he would be agreeable to.

What I could do is undertake to pass that comment to him for you. I think INAC does already work quite considerably with tribal councils, for instance, in the delivery of programs and services when first nations are looking for some of the economies of scale that can be obtained by working together as a group.

I could also mention that many of the self-government negotiations under the inherent right policy are undertaken at a broader level than just with a first nation.

So very definitely we are seeing signs of what you're looking for.

I will leave my colleague to address the issue of the Métis.

We do work with Inuit groups as well, as you probably heard earlier this morning, and the funding does contribute to this. I think we could show you that in some detail if you'd like to hear about it.

On your point about the international year of water, that's a very interesting suggestion. We do have significant investments to make in water quality on reserves up and down the country, so certainly, in terms of your suggestion that we could use some of the testing that goes on as part of the information about broader issues of national water quality, I would certainly pass that on to my colleague, the ADM who is responsible for that.

So again, thank you very much for that.

In regard to using treaty commissioners as a dispute resolution measure, again I think that's a suggestion that I would take back to my colleague who looks after the treaty negotiations that are going on. Also, the work that's undertaken with historic treaties, for instance on the prairie provinces--a suggestion there would be very helpful.

So thank you.

À (1020)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I have just one question on the definition of the north, to maybe clarify it for the committee. The federal definition is north of 60. My question is, why couldn't you expand that definition to include the northern half of the provinces? The same huge geography, isolated communities, and high cost of living are comparable to the northern definitions, and I think the provinces have to be held accountable.

If they're left to their own devices...they're not dealing with northern issues. If there were a federal vision, maybe that would synchronize the partnerships you were talking about.

Ms. Caroline Davis: Yes, and I think infrastructure, for instance, is a concern in those northern areas, very definitely.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We only have four minutes, and at 10:30, we will deal with the main estimates.

Mr. Vellacott, you have three minutes, minus one second.

[English]

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you, Caroline, for being with us.

I guess as we move along and project to the future here in terms of estimates, it is a concern from time to time when we have--and this comes out of the public accounts of Canada from 2002-2003, Indian Affairs and Northern Development section, 13.3--the ministry's summary on vote 6b talking of writing off certain debts and obligations due to her majesty in right of Canada, amounting to $29,156,735, representing the principal and interest of 290 accounts owed by two debtors, and in vote 7b to forgive certain debts and obligations due to her majesty in right of Canada, amounting to $641,638, representing the principal and interest of two accounts owed by one debtor.

So there you have better than $30 million owed by three debtors written off. Why are we doing that? Who are we writing this off to and why?

Ms. Caroline Davis: I would like to have the opportunity to check on that for you. That was the public accounts for 2002-2003?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's correct.

Ms. Caroline Davis: Sorry, I don't have those with me here today, so could we get back to you in writing?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'd appreciate that, if you'd catch the Hansard here and then get back with a response on why we're forgiving $30 million to three debtors--if you include the other $641,638. That's in votes 6b and 7b of the public accounts, 2002-2003.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Pursuant to the agenda, we will now deal with the votes.

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Department

^ç	Vote 1—Operating expenditures................................$537,665,000

Shall vote 1, of the amount of $537,665,000 less the amount of $448,054,166.67 granted in Interim Supply [as reduced] carry?

Before we vote on this, that is a difference of $89,610,833.33.

(Vote 1 is carried on division)

À (1025)

The Chair: We will now deal with vote 5.

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Department

^ç	Vote 5—Expenditures.........................$17,302,000

Shall vote 5, of the amount of $17,302,000 less the amount of $12,976,500 granted in Interim Supply [as reduced] carry?

That is a difference of $4,325,500.

(Vote 5 is carried on division)

The Chair: We will now deal with vote 10.

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Department

^ç	Vote 10—Grants and contributions...........................$4,970,146,000

Shall vote 10, of the amount of $4,970,145,900 less the amount of $4,141,788,250 granted in Interim Supply [as reduced] carry?

That is a difference of $828,357,650.

(Vote 10 is carried on division)

The Chair: We will now deal with vote 15.

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Department

^ç	Vote 15—Payments to Canada Post Corporation............................$27,600,000

Shall vote 15, of the amount of $27,600,000 less the amount of $20,700,000 granted in Interim Supply [as reduced] carry?

That is a difference of $6,900,000.

(Vote 15 is carried on division)

The Chair: Let's turn to vote L20.

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Department

^ç	Vote L20—Loans to aboriginal claimants.............................$38,103,000

Shall vote L20, of the amount of $38,103,000, less the amount of $28,577,250 granted in Interim Supply [as reduced] carry?

That is a difference of $9,525,750.

(Vote L20 is carried)

The Chair: We will deal with vote L25.

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Department

^ç	Vote L25—Loans to the First Nations of British Columbia to assist with their participation in the British Columbia Treaty Commission process.............................$35,500,000

Shall vote L25, of the amount of $35,500,000, less the amount of $26,625,000 granted in Interim Supply [as reduced] carry?

That is a difference of $8,875,000.

(Vote L25 is carried)

The Chair: We will deal with vote 30.

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Department

^ç	Vote 30—Program Expenditures.............................$899,000

Shall vote 30, of the amount of $899,000, less the amount of $674,250 granted in Interim Supply [as reduced] carry?

That is a difference of $224,750.

(Vote 30 is carried)

The Chair: That completes the votes. Shall the committee report the main estimates and these votes to the House of Commons?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We will now deal with item 2. Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), main estimates 2004-2005: vote 40 under “Privy Council” referred to the committee on Tuesday, February 24, 2004.

We have before us, from the Privy Council Office, Mr. Allan MacDonald, Director, Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians Division.

Is Mr. MacDonald replacing the Hon. Denis Coderre?

[English]

Mr. Allan MacDonald: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bagnell.

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell: Thank you. A point of order. I was wondering if I could do my last intervention on the previous section while the Nunavut people are still here. I had an intervention.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you agree? Agreed.

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell: There are some students here from Nunavut Sivuniksavut. It is a program at Algonquin College that allows perhaps 20 students a year to come down here after finishing high school in Nunavut, between college and university. I think there are four students here from the second-year pilot project. They're trying to add a second year as well.

This is an excellent program, and I commend the students for being here today. I hope people will talk to them about how democracy works and how they're seeing it in action. I encourage governments to do what they can to fund this. As you know from the various witnesses we've had, we have to increase the number of people from Nunavut who are in the public service. This type of program will help them get the education they need to be eligible and skilled to take those public service jobs.

They put a second question forward--Nancy asked the first one. I'll just read the question from the students:

In Nunavut, according to studies by Informetrica and PricewaterhouseCoopers, Federal and Territorial governments together spend some $65 million per year in recruitment and relocation costs to support a fly-in bureaucracy (and welfare costs to support very high Inuit unemployment). Will INAC instead commit to putting this $65 million into Inuit education and training (as per Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement)?

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Ms. Davis.

[English]

Ms. Caroline Davis: Thank you very much.

I will take that suggestion back to the minister. We'll get back to you.

Thank you.

À (1030)

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. MacDonald, do you have an opening statement? You have two minutes. We will then proceed with questions.

[English]

Mr. Allan MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have just a couple of things.

As you've indicated, I'm here representing the Honourable Minister Denis Coderre. He's the federal interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians. He had other committee business this morning with Official Languages, and his office has asked me to sit here on his behalf to explain and answer any questions you may have about the Privy Council Office main estimates, as set out in the documents you have.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you. We'll give that a second try, Mr. MacDonald.

Just for the record, question 42 that I asked in the House of Commons on the order paper was on how much money the government has transferred to the Métis Nation of Ontario each fiscal year for the period 1994 to 2003. I consider that to be a fairly straightforward question, but it was not answered in the timeframe normally allotted. Therefore, under the relatively new rules, that question is referred to committee. It was pointed out to me that you are the appropriate person.

This just arrived at the committee's doorstep, so it was suggested this would be an appropriate time to ask you to fill that question out. I am now doing so.

Mr. Allan MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

We've had the question for some time now. We've done the work, and right now it's going through various approvals. You will have the answer by the end of this week. I'll commit that to you.

We've had to canvass numerous other government departments that have funded the Métis Nation of Ontario over the past 10 years. As I said, you'll have the answer to that question by the end of the week.

Mr. John Duncan: I think that tidies it up.

Do I have a couple more minutes, Mr. Chair?

[Translation]

The Chair: Yes, but before continuing, I would like to ask Mr. MacDonald a question.

You have said that this will be by the weekend. What week are you talking about? Are you talking about this week, the week of April 2?

[English]

Mr. Allan MacDonald: I meant this week.

[Translation]

The Chair: Will you submit that to the committee?

[English]

Mr. Allan MacDonald: Yes.

[Translation]

The Chair: A written response?

[English]

Mr. Allan MacDonald: I will give it to the committee in writing, yes.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you.

While we're on the subject of Métis, the government has allocated new moneys to deal with the questions that emanate from the Supreme Court decision in regard to Métis rights. My perception after 10-plus years working in this job and spending several years on the aboriginal affairs committee is that there is a tendency of government to throw money at the problems but not really to deal with them.

One of the key issues everyone asks in terms of any Métis issue is in regard to defining who's who. Is this not the most crucial thing the government could do? What is your department or area doing to address that very question?

Mr. Allan MacDonald: As Minister Mitchell indicated earlier, there was new money announced in Budget 2004, $20.5 million, that will go towards addressing exactly the types of questions you raise. That money falls under the portfolio of the federal interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians. A lot of research needs to be done and commissioned. The court has given some guidance as to where Métis communities are. There is some suggestion as to who Métis people might be. We as a government do not have our own definition as to what that might mean just yet. Some portion of that money is going to assess what the Supreme Court decisions mean, doing a lot of historical research, working with the Métis organizations and the provinces to come to some sort of common understanding of who a Métis harvester is and therefore perhaps leading at some point to who a Métis is for the purposes of, possibly, federal programming. At this point, it's very much a research analysis, an exploration issue, working with provinces and Métis groups to get answers to the types of questions you are posing. We don't have those answers yet.

À (1035)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: The Privy Council plays a role with not only the Métis and non-status Indians, but also as an overarching responsibility. There is a definition under section 35 of the Constitution. I keep thinking there needs to be a call for people to identify themselves under section 35. It's the same thing with the Inuit and the Métis. We specifically know who we are under the Indian registry. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development keeps that registry, but then there are non-status Indians and there is the end effect of Bill C-31. Bill C-31 puts closure to some of the reinstated families. Then there are offspring who will be searching for a definition because they won't be defined as treaty Indians under Bill C-31. They will either be called Métis or non-status again. I think it's time.

I want to ask my question in this light. Being that this is the close of the indigenous decade, can the government make a call or challenge the aboriginal leaders of this country to come together and self-identify who they are so we can solve this issue once and for all? As I said earlier, they are not Indians; they are specific nations. We have a department that deals with Indian affairs, and it's an erroneous term. As the leader of the opposition has realized, it can be misplaced. So was the original terminology. Perhaps it's time this year, as the responsibility of this terminology, because they exist in legislation. Perhaps this is the time to engage in this once and for all. I'm trying to use this as an opportunity. This is the year to do it. Perhaps there is a question to that.

What effort is the government making in this indigenous decade to highlight the indigenous decade, and what efforts are being made in terms of clarifying these identifications?

Mr. Allan MacDonald: I can't speak to the overall efforts of the government with respect to the indigenous decade. I can say with respect to Métis that certainly the Powley decision is really galvanizing government to come to grips with some of those issues. I think the Powley decision has, to some extent, changed the legal landscape, and government is very much in the process of trying to understand exactly what that means for its programs and policies. Certainly the issue of Métis identification, identification of harvesters, membership, all those issues are currently being discussed and assessed throughout government with the provinces and Métis organizations, and I expect there will be some progress made with respect to that component of your question in the course of this year.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In terms of the estimates that are coming forward from the Privy Council, maybe enlighten us as to what the expectations are. Is this allocated to certain departments or through the interlocutor? I'm trying to figure out what expectations we can have with these estimates. Is this part of the $20.5 million that was allocated in the budget? Is this in there as well? Is this wholly or in part of this endeavour?

Mr. Allan MacDonald: No, it's not there. I think the main estimates were printed before the budget came out. Again, as Minister Mitchell indicated, there were new investments announced in the budget for aboriginal people that will fall under the portfolio of the interlocutor. In addition to the $20.5 million announced to implement the Powley decision, the $25 million expansion of the urban aboriginal strategy also falls under Minister Coderre's portfolio. Neither one of those two budget announcements are reflected in these estimates at this point. The estimates that are in front of you are estimated budget prior to the budget announcements in 2004.

There are two chunks of interlocutor funding there. One is for what we call the interlocutor's program funding. That supports aboriginal self-government off reserve with numerous organizations we negotiate with, with the provinces. It supports the capacity of Métis and non-status organizations to deal with the federal government, and it supports things like Métis contributions to the history of Canada.

The other major component of the interlocutor's budget goes towards the urban aboriginal strategy. Most of that money is farmed out to the eight pilot project cities in which the urban aboriginal strategy is operating right now. A big chunk of that is project funding that will go to the eight cities that are currently a part of the urban aboriginal strategy.

À (1040)

The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

Monsieur Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I have a question that relates to the urban aboriginal strategy from the standpoint that we have a successful model of street-level delivery of some pretty effective, efficiently managed programming that's gone on for several decades under the umbrella of the Indian friendship centres. These basically deliver programming to Métis as well as other aboriginals without distinction, from my understanding, and despite their track record, their funding since 1992 has been reduced. When you look at it in real dollar terms, it's been tremendously reduced, so that right now its core funding is significantly less than the urban aboriginal strategy, despite the fact that it covers 117 or more communities and the urban aboriginal strategy covers 8, with some considered expansion, and in the view of many people it is basically not a focused program. This all contributes to a feeling that the government knows how to create new programs and throw money at them, but why is successful delivery penalized instead of rewarded? That seems to be almost the way the government chooses to allocate their funding.

Mr. Allan MacDonald: I'm not sure I agree with your assessment generally. I would agree that the friendship centres do good work. I would have to defer questions about their funding to the Department of Canadian Heritage, which funds the friendship centres, and I can't answer any questions about their reduction in funding.

I would say, though, that in the eight pilot project cities in which we're operating, the friendship centres are partners in some of those in terms of working with municipalities and other aboriginal service deliverers, because the friendship centres are not the only one or even the biggest one in many of the cities in which we work. They do contribute to the urban aboriginal strategy in a number of those pilot project cities.

One thing I would say, though, is that generally the federal government does spend a fair amount of money in the urban aboriginal environment. One of the key objectives of the urban aboriginal strategy--perhaps I can address your question--is to get a better sense of where that money goes and how we can better align the federal programs so we can get better results.

It is very much a pilot project program at this point. We recognize that the results aren't necessarily there with respect to the investments we're making. One of the key objectives of the UAS is to get a better bang for the buck that's out there, to realign programs and to work with groups like the NAFC, the National Association of Friendship Centres, so we can all determine what the community priorities are and fund them accordingly without duplication or without creating any more gaps in programming.

Mr. John Duncan: There's a further problem that I think possibly impinges on the federal government's ability to make appropriate decisions, and that is that the federal government defines an urban aboriginal according to the numbers they are able to collect. Therefore, they tend to place them in big cities, whereas the reality is that probably one of the most significant changes that's occurring is that a lot of this migration is actually going, I'd say, to medium-sized communities, a fact the statistics don't accurately represent.

The academics fail to capture that, yet the government relies on their studies and allocates resources based on academic treatises that are basically painting a picture that's inappropriate. I think this means that in many ways the urban aboriginal strategy is allocating resources in a way that can't possibly deal with the real issues in the same way an organization that is spread through 120-plus communities can.

The fact is that programming is carved up amongst various government departments, as you explained, with some funding coming from Canadian Heritage, some coming from the Privy Council, and some coming from the Department of Indian Affairs. I think there are seven or eight other federal government departments all contributing in one way or another to aboriginal funding. In my view, this is making prioritization and allocation of funding decisions very problematic at times.

What I'm trying to point out here is that, looking at it as half-full and not having it half-empty, we have a prime opportunity for the government to behave in a more appropriate way to get better results.

I don't pose that so much as a question as a postulation and as food for thought.

Thank you.

À (1045)

[Translation]

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

Mr. MacDonald or Ms. Davis.

[English]

Mr. Allan MacDonald: I take the point that it wasn't a question, but I will respond to a couple of the observations you've made.

I don't think the urban aboriginal strategy is competing against the friendship centres because of the very point you made: the scope of each is quite different. The friendship centres are doing good work in many of the smaller communities.

We did have to put some policy parameters around which cities we would go into with the urban aboriginal strategy, and to do that we relied on Statistics Canada data, not just the academics'. What we said was that we'd move into census metropolitan areas that had an aboriginal population of 5% or an absolute number of 15,000 or more, so we did have some objective criteria around which to formulate a policy response.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Bagnell, you have three minutes. Then we will deal with vote 40.

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell: Thank you.

I'll be very short. I just want to make a comment, and then I'll pass it on to my colleagues to ask a question.

First of all, I just wanted to commend the Prime Minister on the urban aboriginal strategy and for making the point that we're not going to let urban aboriginal people fall between the cracks just because of different bureaucratic silos. That is very important because it's a very complicated area.

As a former president of Skookum Jim Friendship Centre, I wanted to support what Mr. Vellacott said, that you will get any support from me for a department that I think does excellent work. They are part of the puzzle, I think, in dealing with aboriginal people; they do an excellent job. There are obviously more parts of the puzzle that need to be put in place, but I'll certainly support increasing their funding, because they do very good non-partisan type of work in dealing with aboriginal people who have moved off reserve and find themselves in urban areas with maybe no place to go for services.

I'll pass it on to the next intervenor.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: On a point of order, you attributed those comments to Mr. Vellacott. It was actually me!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Larry Bagnell: I'm sorry, Mr. Duncan.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will now deal with vote 40.

PRIVY COUNCIL

Department

^ç	Vote 40—Program Expenditures.............................$93,575,000

Shall vote 40, of the amount of $93,575,000 less the amount of $85,777,083.33 granted in Interim Supply [as reduced] carry?

That makes a difference of $7,797,916.

(Vote 40 is carried)

À (1050)

The Chair: Shall the committee report the main estimates to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: At the next meeting, which will be held on Friday, April 1, from 9 o'clock to 11 o'clock, in the same room, we will be dealing with two items. First of all, from 9 o'clock to 10 o'clock, we will an have an in camera session on future business.

Secondly, with respect to the matter of appointments, you agreed that we would hear from the Hon. Jacques Saada or one of his representatives to deal with the matter of appointments to Indian Affairs and Natural Resources agencies. Have you already received a document on this issue?

All right. Thank you very much. The next meeting will be held on April 1.

The meeting is adjourned.