:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for welcoming me here.
I spent quite a bit of time at this particular committee, a short time ago in a previous Parliament, so it's always nice to come back and see lots of bright young faces here this morning.
Welcome to the students. I know they're going to see a display of great patience, cooperation, and dignity from all of the parliamentarians at the table today.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Jim Prentice: First, I'd like to thank you for letting me appear before you, Mr. Chair and colleagues, to discuss the main estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I'm a firm believer in scrutiny of the estimates, and this committee fulfills a very valuable role in that function. I welcome the opportunity to talk with you and to discuss any of the specifics you wish to discuss.
Of course, I have with me three very able people from the department with whom you may wish to speak as well. Mike Wernick is the deputy minister of the department and was appointed in May. Before that he had an extensive career in the Government of Canada with the Privy Council Office, and he's doing a fine job. He will be assisted by Jim Quinn and Suzanne Tining, who are both very senior people in the department with senior responsibilities. They can certainly answer many of the questions as well.
As I begin, I should say that the executive team at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is one that the government and the people of Canada can take considerable pride in. It is an executive team—I know it's not a competition—that I'm always proud to say are the equal of any other executive team in government. So they're very capable people and have a tough job, but they discharge their responsibilities with great ability and integrity.
Ladies and gentlemen, the total spending in this year's main estimates of the INAC department is approximately $6.3 billion, which is roughly 6.2% higher than last year. This spending reflects our government's firm and ongoing pledge to resolve several vaccine challenges that confront aboriginal peoples and northerners.
Specifically, the new government is determined to close the gaps between aboriginal people and other Canadians when it comes to issues such as education, housing, health care, and other key elements of healthy and fulfilling lives.
Of course these estimates do not contain the expenditures on aboriginal health. They're contained in the Department of Health's estimates, and as I recall, that's almost an additional $2 billion, which you would find in the Department of Health, in addition to the $6 billion we're speaking of here.
The main estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development reflect the government's approach to reaching goals. It's an approach based on workable solutions, targeted expenditures, and measurable results. More precisely, we focused on four specific areas.
The first is to empower individuals to take greater control and responsibility for their lives through directing investment towards housing and education.
Next, we are looking to accelerate land claims, and this work is under way at this point. I appeared last night in front of the Senate committee, which is conducting an investigation into the specific claims. They will be preparing a report, hopefully by Christmas, that will detail how they think the government should be dealing with specific claims, and I've committed to a retooling of that process.
We are also promoting economic development, job training skills, and entrepreneurship.
Finally, we are laying the groundwork for responsible self-government by moving towards modern and accountable governance structures.
When I speak of economic development, I should point out for the benefit of the committee that a number of years ago, the economic development portfolio was created for Indian and Northern Affairs. It was then taken out of the department and transferred to Industry, Trade and Commerce.
So I welcome your thoughts on this. That's something I have spoken extensively to first nations leaders about. As it currently sits, economic development is essentially the responsibility of a different government department, not INAC, and I've heard much criticism of this.
Mr. Chair, I'm convinced that this four-pronged approach represents the most prudent and effective way to put into action the resources presented in the main estimates. In fact this approach has already yielded tangible results for northerners and our first nations citizens.
Last spring the new government's first budget included $750 million to help aboriginal peoples access supplies of safe drinking water, enhance on-reserve housing, and create both educational programs for students and social programs for aboriginal women, children, and families. The budget also set aside $300 million to help aboriginal people and northerners build and repair affordable housing in the north, and set aside up to $500 million over ten years to offset the potential socio-economic impacts of the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline.
I should point out that these investments are not contained in the main estimates. To fulfill these commitments, we will use the supplementary estimates that were tabled in the House earlier this week and the main estimates for future years.
Supplementary estimates will also be used to take additional steps to enhance the quality of life in first nation communities. For instance, last week I announced that there would be an additional $6 million available this year to help ensure that 35 department-funded family violence shelters continue to provide essential support services to women and children on reserves. I would point out that this is the first time the funding for the on-reserve shelter network has been enhanced in 15 years--the first time that's been done.
Just this past week at the Socioeconomic Forum in Quebec--some of our parliamentary colleagues were also in attendance--the government announced more than $88 million in initiatives and investments to benefit first nations, Métis, and Inuit people in Quebec and in Labrador. In addition to these investments, a collaborative effort began to improve the quality of drinking water available in first nation communities.
Working alongside the Assembly of First Nations, I initiated a consultative process that included the creation of an expert panel to investigate the issue and propose effective legislative solutions. Clearly there is a need for more investment in that area, and I understand that, but we also need an effective regulatory regime on a go-forward basis.
I believe a strong legislative framework is required to ensure that first nation communities enjoy greater access to safe drinking water. A strong framework will ensure consistent operating, performance, and maintenance standards, establish clear roles and responsibilities for all groups and all levels of government, and establish mechanisms to deal with failure or negligence.
Plans are also under way to establish a legislative framework in several other areas, which the committee members are aware of, including on-reserve matrimonial real property and first nations education. I won't belabour that point. I think everyone here is aware of matrimonial real property, the steps that are being taken, and the controversy that surrounds it.
Wendy Grant-John has been appointed as my ministerial representative. She is a distinguished first nation citizen, three times elected as the chief to her particular community, and I think one of the most respected aboriginal leaders in Canada. The Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations are also participating to facilitate consultations and to ensure that everyone is heard.
When those consultations are finished, I intend to act on the specific legislative recommendation they bring forward and introduce it to the House, hopefully with the broad support from all of the colleagues we have at this table.
The second example of solid legislative frameworks is the tripartite agreement that will enable first nation communities in British Columbia to assume effective and meaningful control over their on-reserve elementary and secondary education. This is known as the FNESC initiative, something that I signed with the Government of British Columbia and first nations in B.C. in June of this year. I am convinced that the calibre of education delivered on reserve will improve steadily as first nation communities in British Columbia take control of such areas as curriculum, educational standards, and teaching certification.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, this agreement has served as an inspiration, I suppose you could say, for the recent memorandum of understanding that was signed at the Socioeconomic Forum in Quebec between the Government of Canada and the First Nations Education Council of Quebec. This memorandum of understanding will enable the two sides, and eventually the Government of Quebec as well, to improve education for students from first nations communities, to increase graduation rates for first nations students, and ensure these students can take full advantage of employment and economic opportunities available to the young.
Of all the matters we work on, education is surely the one we have to get right. It is critical in terms of moving forward and achieving real change. I am very proud of the progress we're making on the education file.
The legislative frameworks that govern MRP and first nations education are crucial to create enduring solutions. Only by modernizing the legal framework that regulates the relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada can we ensure concrete improvements in their lives and make certain that specific programs are effective.
Another area I will focus on is the finalizing of comprehensive claims and self-government agreements, specific claims, and treaty land claim settlements in addition to additions to reserves. Since assuming office, the new government has finalized a number of important settlements, some such as the Fort William First Nation's rifle range claim and other specific claims, but more importantly recently the initialling last weekend of the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation agreement in British Columbia. This is the first treaty concluded under the B.C. treaty process that was put in place 15 years ago.
There may be questions about it, but the treaty shows the way forward in British Columbia. This may be the most important development in British Columbia in the last 100 years, and other treaties will fall into place behind the Lheidli T'enneh as well.
I am a firm believer in concluding fair and honourable settlements. Settlements are about justice, reconciliation, and respect. They are about making sure we have a better future and coming to terms with the past. Each settlement clears the way to strengthen governance and to provide new economic and social opportunities.
Although this subject matter is not a land claims settlement, I can also report today that the new government took decisive action shortly after coming to office to resolve the legacy of the Indian residential school system.
Early in the year, I was pleased to announce the conclusion of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, which is currently before the courts. This historic settlement agreement, whose commitments are reflected in the departmental spending, in the estimates, includes a variety of provisions that will acknowledge the painful experiences endured by 80,000 former residential school students and give their families an opportunity to share their experiences with all Canadians. This settlement is tangible proof that the government recognizes the importance of bringing to an end the sad legacy of the Indian residential schools and moving forward in partnership with all Canadians.
The subject of specific claims warrants mention. The department has achieved success in the resolution of many specific claims, but there remain significant challenges to be addressed in the field of specific claims. Over the last 15 years, the number of specific claims backlogged in the federal system has swollen from something in the neighbourhood of 300 claims to currently over 800 claims. This number continues to grow, and the number of claims submitted yearly by first nations greatly exceeds the number of claims that have been resolved by governments year after year over the last 10 years. As the backlog of specific claims increases, the amount of effort it takes to resolve each claim also increases, and the value of the specific claims process as an alternative to litigation is increasingly diminished.
I have said this is unacceptable and that the specific claims process needs to be retooled so that it more effectively deals with the situation. I am not in a position today to announce the details of the action plan on specific claims. That work is under way. I have been working very closely with the department on that. I have some ideas to share with the committee about where improvements can be made. I spoke for an hour last night with the Senate committee about this.
We have to explore a wider set of tools such as binding arbitration and mediation. We have to streamline approval processes. We have to make sure that the authorities within my department and the Department of Justice work properly, and we have to clarify the responsibilities and roles of the Indian Specific Claims Commission.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I realize that considerable time and diligent effort will be required for all of us to achieve these objectives, and as the main estimates for my department make clear, our work for this year will take a substantial amount of money. I can assure everyone here and my colleagues that our four-pronged approach is a focused and proven way to make clear progress towards these goals.
As minister and as head of this department, I can also assure this committee that we will follow through on the commitments we've made. We will measure our performance as we go, and we will ensure that our efforts are open, transparent, and accountable to the committee, to the House of Commons, and to all Canadians.
I'm hopeful that we can carry on with a constructive relationship with this committee on which I was pleased to serve. I welcome your advice and your input as we move forward together.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That covers a fair bit of ground, and I know it's important that we have time for questions, so I'm pleased to answer the questions of my colleagues.
:
Those are thoughtful questions. I had expected nothing less. I don't know whether I can answer both of them in the time to go.
Let me just say concerning on-reserve private housing that there is absolutely no intention to break up reserves into private land that will then be separated from first nation communities. There are workable ways, and we can maybe get into them a little later in terms of the detail.
I am very familiar, for example, with the Métis settlements legislation in northern Alberta, which I worked on for many years. It has melded together the concept of community-held land with private holdings. There's nothing inconsistent, and we can sort that out.
Let's come back to the fisheries. I mentioned the Lheidli T'enneh initialling this weekend. I'm not sure people have focused on this yet, but you will see embedded in that treaty the approach of which I have spoken on treaties, and concerning fish in particular. The essence of it is that, first, first nations in British Columbia have a constitutionally recognized right to food and ceremonial fish. The treaties recognize that. No one has ever questioned it.
You will see in the context of the Lheidli T'enneh treaty that it's subject to only two qualifications. One is conservation, and the other is public health and safety. It is fully consistent with what the Supreme Court has said. That right to food and ceremonial fish is essentially the paramount right on the river, if you will. The treaties recognize that.
Beyond that, we're into commercial rights of fishing. What you'll see in the Lheidli T'enneh treaty is that those rights have not been constitutionalized. There are what are called harvest allotments. A simpler word for it, which not everyone likes, is quota. There is a quota allotted to the Lheidli T'enneh as a commercial right, and it is a right that they can sell. They can sell it to anyone else; it has nothing to do with race, or anything else. It is a commercial right.
They can buy up more quota on the river or they can sell their quota on the river. The quota is defined as a certain percentage—0.7043%—of the harvestable allowable annual catch on the upper Fraser. This is a commercial right that has been accorded.
They are then subject to all of the fisheries regulations and the conservation measures and the control of the river, and in addition, this quota is a flexible formula, depending upon the abundance of fish in the river.
I think what you'll see in this, Mr. Merasty, is the way forward in dealing with the reconciliation of aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen on the river.
I know I've gone on too long on this, but it is an important subject.
The final point that needs to be made about it is that this all really occurs at a time on the Fraser River when the river moves from being an opportunity-based fishery, where everybody just catches whatever they can and people get as much fish as they possibly can, to where because of conservation the river is becoming a harvest allotment-based river, in which there will have to be shares. It's the only way to manage the resource, because of the pressure on it. First nation citizens under these treaties will secure a commercial opportunity to share in that allotment.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want the record to show that we had expected the Minister to be here from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
I find it unacceptable -- and I hope the committee agrees with me -- that the Minister would only appear for one hour. I trust I've made myself clear. This minister, for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect, oversees a budget of $6,270,544,000 and I find it completely unacceptable that we have only one hour to grill him. Therefore, I ask that he be recalled so that we can ask him more questions.
Having said that, I see, Minister, that you are well acquainted with your department. So, I will have a very specific question for you.
A document entitled Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Canadian Polar Commission and Indian Specific Claims Commission was tabled to the committee. We have read it very carefully. The question pertains to the estimates of the Indian Specific Claims Commission.
I was completely floored, Minister, when I read page 49 of the French version of the document. As you know, housing, both on- reserve and off-reserve, is one of the most pressing problems facing First Nations and the Inuit.
I was surprised to read that the 2007-2008 budget will be reduced by $211 million compared to the previous year's budget, and that there will be an additional $224 million cut from the 2008-2009 budget compared to the 2007-2008 one. The cuts will come in the area of housing for First Nations. Therefore, over the next three years, not only will First Nations and Inuit not receive additional funding, they can expect cuts to off-reserve housing funding.
Minister, it's no secret that 40% of your budget is earmarked for program administration, which means that 40% of $6,270,544 is allocated to program administration. How much money is left over for First Nations and Inuit housing? I'd like some specific numbers. How much money will be available for housing for the next three years?
:
It is only to 2006-07 because that's the purview of this budget.
The Indian Specific Claims Commission is one of the bodies that is under review as part of my commitment to retool the specific claims process. The commission is fundamental to that process. As you know, it's a commission I sat on for 10 years as a commissioner. I have some very strong views about the valuable role the commission plays. It has been criticized more recently with respect to whether it has bumped up against a glass ceiling or not. But leaving that issue aside, the Indian Specific Claims Commission will either have to evolve into a more fulsome claims body, or it will have to be wound down. That is one of the issues that the Senate is currently exploring. We will see what the Senate has to say about that in the days ahead.
These estimates only take us out so far, and then we'll have to renew approvals and proceed from there. So that's the Indian Specific Claims Commission.
With respect to the B.C. treaty process, the Auditor General, in this November report, will be including a chapter on the British Columbia treaty process. This started 15 years ago. It was, at the time, quite an exciting new process, which was created by Prime Minister Mulroney and Premier Harcourt in 1992.
Since that time, as a nation, we have invested $750 million in the B.C. treaty process. There are 48 tables currently at work. This weekend we just signed the first agreement, the very first one to get over the finish line. There are another two to six moving along through the final agreement stage.
So we are making progress. As I said earlier, I regarded what happened in B.C. on the weekend as a very important chapter in Canadian history. Again, we have to wait and see what the Auditor General recommends with respect to the B.C. treaty process. Certainly I am committed to the continuation of that work in B.C. That's why I was there with Premier Campbell signing the treaty on the weekend.
I am immensely encouraged by the progress we are making. There are some tough issues at the table. Allocation of fish resources is a difficult issue. Something called own-source revenue is an issue. The financial self-government arrangements between first nations and the government are an issue. But a lot of the heavy lifting has been done.
It's quite heartening, actually. If you look at a map of the comprehensive claims work that has been done in Canada, really, over the course of the last 40 years, starting with the James Bay Cree agreement in 1975, it's actually pretty remarkable. We've succeeded largely in clearing away the comprehensive claims challenges the country faces. There still is outstanding business, for sure, but there are actually only a couple of large claims north of 60 that are left--the Dehcho and the Akaitcho--and really, the work, the unfinished business in our country, is not restricted to but is heavily focused on British Columbia.
:
If I might speak to the subject of water, given the nature of our country, we have first nation communities, reserve communities, that have water challenges. We also have other rural communities that are not first nation status communities, and certainly not reserve communities, where there are water challenges as well because of the remoteness.
When I became the minister, I was very concerned about the circumstances of water, because the Government of Canada has been investing a significant amount of money--I think the program expenditures, if I recall, were something in the nature of $1.6 billion over many years--and the concern we've been hearing was that the results were not present. We were not seeing results in the communities.
One of the first things I did when I became the minister was say to the officials that we needed to get a handle on this situation and I wanted them to overlay all of the scientific information they had about the status of water in the communities. I asked them to look at the maintenance records, look at the data we had on source water, look at the whole question of the capital investments that were needed. They were to overlay all of the scientific data and tell me what the status of things was. They came back to me with information that, frankly, was very concerning. They identified 190 communities where the communities were at high risk. In addition to the 190, they identified 21 communities worse than that, where they said the community itself was at high risk.
So one of the first things we did was direct our efforts towards the 21 communities at risk to make sure we didn't have a repetition of the circumstances that the previous government faced in a northern Ontario community, to make sure that we were dealing with those 21 communities. We've also been focusing on the other 190.
There are 755 first nation water systems under the responsibility of INAC and first nations, so it's a big job. We're doing the best we can.
I can tell you one thing for sure--if there is a problem now, we move immediately. I can't promise people in this room that tomorrow there's not going to be a water problem in a community that none of us is familiar with in northern Alberta. But I can tell you this: if it happens, this department now moves immediately. We put people on the ground immediately. Health Canada is there with us. We make sure that there's no E. coli in the water. We don't sit on that information for months. We move immediately, stabilize the situation, and apply resources to rectify the situation.
We are trying to work together with the provinces and municipalities, where they are prepared to do so, because in many circumstances we may have a first nation water system that can provide services to people off reserve or we may have municipal-provincial infrastructure, and the most cost-effective thing to do is to tie in those systems together. We try to do that wherever possible. It doesn't happen in as many cases as I would like because there just aren't as many opportunities, especially in the remote communities, but there are in places southern B.C.
In terms of communities that are not status Indian first nation communities that are the responsibility of this department, we are prepared to work together with the provinces, in concert, to make sure Canadian citizens have proper drinking water.
:
Well, you managed to sneak three very fundamental public policy questions into two minutes. I'll try to do justice to them, and we could talk about them at great length, so I'll just have to try to be concise.
On consultation, engagement, accommodation, and so on, there's a spectrum of issues in there, some of which are very clearly legal tests set by the Supreme Court in various decisions about the obligation of the government to consult, engage, and to try to accommodate treaty and aboriginal rights if it is contemplating decisions, actions, regulatory decisions, and so on, that could impact those. And that's a process that we and the Department of Justice are trying to drive through the federal system, through its various boards and agencies, so that they understand that the National Energy Board or the Transport Commission, or whatever...and that we work with other departments on that.
There's a fairly narrow version of that. There's also a broader sense of the need to consult and engage, which is just common sense and 30 years of history, and it would be foolish--and would undoubtedly generate very bad policy and law--to think that the department or any group of officials or consultants in Ottawa is going to come up with the solutions that'll work in first nations or Inuit communities without the full input and engagement of the people who are affected by those decisions, who are going to live in those communities and so on. So there's a common sense version of consultation.
In the department we have long-standing relationships with national and regional aboriginal organizations; we've worked with them through leadership changes of ministers and leadership changes in those political organizations. Currently we have a very constructive relationship with all five organizations that were in the Kelowna process. I've met with most of the leaders and I'm going to meet with the rest over the next week or two.
The Assembly of First Nations in particular have been a very valuable partner. As you know, they are playing a full role in the matrimonial property process, driving part of the consultations, being part of the development of legislation that this committee will be looking at next year. They're very heavily involved in water. They're very heavily involved in housing. We have tables going on in economic development.
So it may be a little quieter and less multilateral than the process that led to Kelowna, with 17, 18, or 19 parties around the table, but much of that investment in relationships and goodwill and analysis is carrying forward and is being used as a basis to give advice and recommendations to the government. That's on the consultation.
We could go on about any specific issue as to how we're going about it, and we're probably not doing as much as we should, but the reflexive and standard operating principle is that we have an obligation to come up with advice and analysis for our minister and to work for the people of Canada. We also have an obligation to work very closely with aboriginal and northern Canadians on the issues that affect them.
On accountability and capacity building, I can't really do justice to it other than to say that one thing we learned from the hard lessons of Kashechewan and other communities is that capacity matters enormously. You can put money into capital facilities, and we certainly need more investments in capital in first nations communities, but there are connected issues of training, oversight, and inspection and of things being properly installed in the first place and being maintained. There are issues around the capacity of communities, which are relatively small in many cases, to manage budgets.
So everything we can do to strengthen governance in first nations communities, in terms of financial managers, community planners, audits and accountants, and all the kinds of things that governments need, is all to the good. It makes our job so much easier and improves the results in the communities; there's just more bang for the buck and more results. So we have a myriad of initiatives to strengthen—not to do it for anybody, but to provide funding and space for people to grow and train in these kinds of skills. Essentially what's happening out there is the construction of an aboriginal public service, which now has 20,000 to 25,000 people working in it for various governments and institutions.
Some of the most exciting things were launched a year or two ago around land management, the resource centre, the statistical institute, and so on.
[Inaudible--Editor]
Mr. Michael Wernick: They are in the process of being set up. There are appointments, and it's always slower than it should be, and there's a consultation obligation to make sure we are putting people in those institutions that first nations people, in particular, will have confidence in.
On the third point, on liability, that's the last thing you have to worry about. We have so many lawyers giving us legal advice on potential breaches of obligations and treaties that, if anything, I would say we're too cautious and too risk averse.
One of the reasons we have so many of those claims is that not all of the claims in that inventory have to do with land issues; many of them do, but often they're breaches, administrative issues of bad practice by all of my predecessors, going back to Confederation, where transactions went awry or funds were not properly managed and our obligations, our fiduciary obligations in particular, were breached. So that's part of the claims inventory.
One of the things we learned slowly and painfully is not to do it again. Every time we set up a program or initiative or regulation, we try to make sure we're doing it in a way that minimizes the legal risk of creating more things. We don't really want to spend the kind of time and resources on litigation that we do, but people have a right to pursue legal remedies. So we try to make sure those liabilities are minimized.
I could deal with provincial standards, if you like, because that's a huge philosophical question of whether it's federal rules through federal legislation, imposition of provincial standards by reference, or the exercise of the jurisdiction through first nation law-making. We're going to live that on matrimonial property, we're going to live that on water, and we're going to live that on education. I'm not sure there's a common answer. It may depend on the particular issue.