AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 3, 2001

• 1109

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)): I'd like to call the meeting to order.

We have a few housekeeping items we can take care of before the minister comes in this morning. At the subcommittee meeting we talked over some suggestions we might want to take up for the next couple of weeks. Our clerk has prepared our first report. That's been distributed to you. I'm wondering if anyone has any questions on it. Otherwise, we can take the recommendation as is and have a motion to take it forward.

• 1110

What we haven't put on the list...depending on what happens.... If the Minister of Foreign Affairs couldn't come in, we would offer other suggestions. We won't be able to do that until we've gone through this and have made the first preliminary request.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Just so I understand, you're asking us to agree. Basically, what we're confirming is that this is what we wanted to do, and you're asking us to do it as a group, not by the.... Is that correct?

The Chair: Yes.

These were things we discussed at the subcommittee, so we have to bring them forth to the full committee. I'm just wondering if there's a motion to concur, and the recommendations of this—

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): I'd so move, Madam Chair.

The Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Because I'm not on the subcommittee, could you clarify what the purpose is, particularly of 2 and 3?

The Chair: Okay.

For number 2, when the Cree-Naskapi Commission appeared before the committee, they talked about Indian Affairs not responding to certain recommendations or not responding to their reports. I wasn't here either, but the committee asked that a particular person from the Department of Indian Affairs appear before the committee to answer some questions that arose from the Cree-Naskapi Commission appearing before the committee. They wanted Mr. Terry Henderson to appear before the committee to answer to the Cree-Naskapi questions.

Mr. David Chatters: Yes.

The Chair: For number 3, there were some questions the committee wanted to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding North American energy policy and international issues. Mr. Godfrey might be able to shed some light on this, because I wasn't here for that one either.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'd just like to mention one other element. There has been formed a cabinet committee on energy policy generally, which Mr. Manley chairs. I thought it would be useful for the committee to have an early sense of what the mandate of that group is and which way they are going.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay.

The Chair: Are there any more questions?

Mr. Marceau, you had your hand up.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Yes. It may simply be a question of semantics. But under Item 2, in the fourth line, it says: “insisting that Terry Henderson appear”. I thought it would be more appropriate to say: “qu'il exige” in French, and in English, not:

[English]

“insisting” that Terry Henderson appear but “demanding” that Terry Henderson appear.

The Clerk of the Committee: In the report it says “insist”, but in the letter it says

[Translation]

“demands”. In the draft letter I prepared, it says “demands”. We forgot to make the changes.

[English]

We forgot to make the changes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: So, we will make the same change here. That's fine. As I understand it, this is being submitted so that we can adopt it here in committee. I suggest that we use the same wording as in the letter—in other words, that we say “exige” in French, unless that poses a problem. In English, it would be

[English]

“demand”.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): The only recommendation I might make to alter this would concern the fact that we have a two-hour block of time scheduled for Mr. Henderson. I really think that's a very generous amount of time, given that we have other guests we want to get in during the month of May as well. For most of the committees I sit on, one hour per presentation is more than adequate. We've actually found on this committee that when we only have one guest scheduled, after one hour and 15 minutes we're all out of gas and we end up leaving early.

• 1115

Just to make it a better use of time, I would suggest that we alter that to have Mr. Henderson here for one hour, from 11 to 12, and that we perhaps put one of our other guests in the remaining hour.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Regarding Mr. Terry Henderson, whose name was mentioned, are we referring to a specific issue, such as housing?

Mr. Richard Marceau: We are talking about the report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, to which there has been no government response in the more than two years since it was released. We want to be given an explanation as to why there has been no response.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: That is going to take two years, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I see the minister is here, so I think some of the questions you have could be directed to him.

I know Mr. Finlay had put a motion forward to concur with this, but we had one word changed to “demand”, so if he concurs with that change.... I realize you might want to....

Are there any more questions?

Mr. Pat Martin: What about the alterations to the amendment I recommended? It does say specifically...in fact, his is the only group that specifically says what hours they would be here—

The Chair: Unless we just take out the time and the—

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, if we take away any reference to the time, then we could choose—

Mr. John Godfrey: At 11 a.m.

Mr. Pat Martin: It would be starting at 11 a.m.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I think I'm actually trying to help Mr. Serré out here in that there was a suggestion we need to make the following motion:

That the Committee concur in the conclusions of the Fourth Report (36th parliament, 2nd Session) of the former Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations entitled “Forest Management Practices in Canada as an International Trade Issue” which was previously presented to the House on June 27, 2000 and that the Committee present these conclusions to the House, requesting a comprehensive Government Response.

I am assuming that it was because of the interruption of the election that we never got a response to this previous report. Therefore, we're not going to rehash it, but we want to resubmit it and try to get the answer. Okay?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Minister, I guess we've done all our housekeeping here, so we'd like to invite you to the table.

For Thursday, May 3, 11 a.m., our order of the day covers, in accordance with the order of reference from the House of February 27, 2001, the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25, L30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 under Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

• 1120

I would like to open by calling vote 1. This opens the discussion phase of our consideration of the estimates and we will now proceed with the minister's appearance.

Thank you for coming to speak to the committee this morning.

Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As usual, it's a pleasure to be here.

As you know, this is my second appearance before your committee as the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to speak on the estimates. I have very strong feelings as a minister about making sure we come and defend our estimates—it's our role, a part of our job.

Before I start, allow me to introduce Gordon Shanks. He's the ADM in charge of corporate services, or, as I like to call him, the numbers guy. If there is anything you need or want to know about any particular number, there's no doubt in my mind Mr. Shanks can tell you where the money goes and who we spend it on. He'll fill in the blanks on occasion for me. If there's a particular issue you ask about for which I don't know the answer, Gordon will give it to you, because that is what we're here to do.

Madam Chair, before we do get into questions, I'm going to make a short presentation. I'm sure people are aware of the process. I won't be too long and I'll give plenty of time for questions. Hopefully, we will respond to the interests of individual members.

I want to thank you for inviting me to appear before this important committee. I welcome the opportunity to bring committee members up to date on our department's recent achievements and our plans for continued progress in the coming year.

Before I do, I want to say how much I value the work of the committee and how much I appreciate the opportunities that present themselves to use your committee to advance the agenda of aboriginal people. In the next number of weeks, if not months, I will be calling on the committee to help us with a number of major pieces of work we hope to bring to your attention in the not too distant future. I probably will be seeing you on a regular basis to talk about those initiatives.

Your insights and advice and support on a broad range of issues have been extremely helpful to INAC as we deliver our departmental agenda. Your contributions are enabling us to fulfil the promise of the Speech from the Throne in which our government committed to create opportunities that would be shared with aboriginal people.

We pledged to strengthen our relationship with aboriginal people and to tackle their most pressing problems. We made a firm commitment to ensure basic needs are met for jobs, health, education, housing, and infrastructure. Madam Chair, I can proudly report we have made progress on each of these fronts since I last appeared before this committee, and as the 2001-2002 Report on Plans and Priorities makes clear, we are determined to accomplish even more in the coming months.

The key accomplishments: let me highlight only a few of the achievements in what has been a remarkable year for our department. One of the most important developments was the significant increase in our economic development budget to meet the growing needs and opportunities in first nations communities for a strategic economic investment.

The infusion of an additional $100 million since last May has created unprecedented opportunities for economic development partnerships. In fact, the growth rate of aboriginal entrepreneurship is twice the Canadian average. There are now over 22,000 aboriginal businesses across the country. Today we see aboriginal entrepreneurs developing new products, new services, new ideas, and of course, bringing them to market. We also see non-aboriginal business leaders discovering the enormous potential of aboriginal people, not only as consumers and as markets, but also as partners and associates in joint ventures.

Over the past year we've identified a number of large-scale partnership opportunities, particularly in the resource sectors and in regional infrastructure. For example, the first nations forestry program, a joint initiative with first nations and Natural Resources Canada, has received the Public Service Award of Excellence and is recognized by the Commissioner of the Environment.

• 1125

We've been working with community leaders, our provincial-territorial counterparts, and the private sector to lever resources to increase aboriginal participation in these projects and to ensure that economic benefits from these projects flow to the communities.

In 2000-2001, we supported over 250 first nations and Inuit economic opportunity investments. These initiatives are being designed specifically to increase employment opportunities, skills transfer, and overall investments in the community. In addition, we are working to remove impediments to first nations and Inuit economic development. In March 2001, I announced the launch of the aboriginal contract guarantee instrument, which will provide aboriginal businesses for the first time with access to a contract guarantee instrument required to mainstream surety industry projects.

For those who may not readily understand this, Madam Chair, basically it refers to how, in the construction industry, if you don't have bonding you can't bid. We are one of the largest contractors, of course; the Department of Indian Affairs offers capital to work across the country. Most first nations contractors and corporations, because they could not get bonding through the industry, could not qualify to do work in their own communities.

This new instrument will allow the department to work with the industry to put in place a bonding instrument allowing first nations contractors to now bid fairly, at least in their own regions, if not in their own communities. I hope this will bring not only fairness but also more employment for aboriginal people.

As members of the committee may be aware, some of the most exciting economic development opportunities are in northern Canada. Diamond mine exploration and development is expected to bring long-term economic benefits to the north. BHP's first development, the Ekati mine, is already proving that prediction. It is anticipated that several new diamond mines will be developed in the NWT and Nunavut in the next few years. This new level of activity reflects the great potential of all three northern territories.

In addition to diamond mines, over the last 18 months representatives of the natural gas industry have been discussing northern development with federal, provincial, and territorial officials as well as aboriginal leaders and communities. We expect industry will take further steps to develop northern gas soon, leading to the development of at least one, and potentially two, gas pipelines. The human and material resources required to advance these projects will create meaningful social and economic benefits for northern communities—indeed, for all of Canada.

We are therefore working with our partners to create an operating environment that will promote investment and foster further northern development. We will continue to successfully address environmental protection issues in order that the north's wealth of non-renewable resources is developed in a sustainable manner.

Madam Chair, we remain committed to working with northerners, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to ensure that they participate in the decisions that will so profoundly affect the future of their territories, that they benefit from the exciting opportunities currently under development.

Madam Chair, INAC has been equally committed to ensuring social progress for aboriginal people. Our investments in education reform are a testament to that commitment. Last year's $40 million investment in education supported the introduction or continuation of over 300 initiatives affecting more than 500 first nations and Inuit communities. Most significantly, 60% of investments were dedicated to regional level strategies designed and delivered by first nations organizations to increase institutional capacity in education.

A further investment of $40 million in education reform in 2001-2002 will ensure continued progress in first nations education. There are now more than 30,000 aboriginal university graduates providing the basis for a dynamic new business class.

• 1130

Another area where we've been able to improve social conditions in aboriginal communities is housing. And I understand there's been quite a dialogue and discussion in this committee of late on housing. As of the end of March 2000 the adequacy of housing on reserve increased to over 57% from 50% as of March 1996. During the same time the total number of houses on reserve increased from 78,200 to 88,500.

I would now like to tell you about the aboriginal Canada portal, which is the product of a very successful collaboration between the Government of Canada and various aboriginal organizations. Our partners—the Assembly of First Nations, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Council for the Advancement of Native Development Officers, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the Métis National Council, and the Native Women's Association of Canada—helped to create this tool, which will help us go even further towards our shared objectives.

The economic, cultural, and social benefits of information and communication technologies, particularly the Internet, are enormous for aboriginal people. You might wonder why we slipped that in. It's become quite apparent that one of the issues confronting aboriginal people, because of where they live, given our commitment as a government to be involved in technology and improvements in technology, is to make sure that aboriginal communities don't fall behind the rest of Canada, are connected, and can compete and do business on the Internet like everyone else. And our interest in creating a portal is to supply the various kinds of information, not only information dealing with government, but information dealing with business and opportunities that exist. This portal, it's our belief, will have a huge impact on building an economy in first nations in the long run.

I don't think I have to repeat it too often, but I want to put it on the record that I know you all agree that Canada's aboriginal population is young and growing. More than any other segment of the aboriginal population, children and youth have the most to gain from our efforts to bridge that digital divide. This is especially true for those living in remote communities, as I said. While it's often said that the Internet brings the world to our fingertips, practical experience has shown that navigating through the sheer volume of information on the web presents a challenge. By providing a single, Internet-based entry point to over 5,000 aboriginal Canadians online, this portal will allow users to hit their target and find what they need. And I would encourage you to take a look yourself and see what you can supply to help your constituents in your own regions.

Although we have much more work to do, the aboriginal Canada portal is one more tool that can be used to ensure that aboriginal people and first nations communities enjoy a standard of living that is on par with their non-aboriginal counterparts. So as we progress in our efforts, advances such as improved infrastructure will allow more people to use this resource, regardless of where they live in Canada.

Madam Chair, as I did last year when I came to the committee, I want to mention again that we are also witnessing appreciable progress in self-government. We are currently engaged in over 80 tables, involving more than half of the first nations and Inuit communities in Canada. Self-government agreements are an acknowledgement that the most valuable thing government can do is help aboriginal communities help themselves. This in turn means providing appropriate and adequate tools, resources, and supports for communities to govern their own affairs, because in the end, it's not enough simply to acknowledge aboriginal rights; aboriginal people must be empowered to exercise those rights. In recognition of this fundamental truth, our department's most recent contribution to improving the standard of living and quality of life of aboriginal people lies in our new initiative, the one that was announced in the House yesterday, to modernize first nations governance.

You heard yesterday and earlier this week that I have announced the launch of national consultations with first nations to get their guidance on what first nations governance legislation should say. I am seeking first nations input before introducing a bill in the House of Commons, to be sure we get first nations governance right. The foundation has been formed by previous work that has taken place over a number of years. Well-known projects, such as the joint INAC/AFN initiative, consultations on the Gathering Strength policy initiative, RCAP, and informal discussions with aboriginal leaders have led us to this point.

• 1135

As you can see, and as you've heard over the last number of days, I am very excited about the governance initiative. I see it as a critical interim measure that will enable and accelerate real change as we work towards self-government. This government remains committed to the inherent right to self-government and to the need to continue to support negotiation tables that are progressing towards agreements. But the process of getting there is going to take some time, and I for one am not prepared to accept the economic, social, and governance status quo. Nor are the courts prepared to accept the outdated authorities and gaps found in the Indian Act.

As I mentioned yesterday to those of you who were in the House, we are using videos, TV, and print media to raise awareness of what's being proposed. We've set up a 1-800 line with the Bella Bella call centre at Heiltsuk First Nation in B.C. to hear what individual band members have to say. And I'm also very excited about communicating through our website. Visitors will be able to gain information on the web, write their comments via e-mail, or chat with first nations members from across the country to exchange ideas and put forward suggestions.

Before I continue, Madam Chair, I want to make something very clear. Members will recall that on March 19 of this year the House unanimously adopted a motion that the government stipulate that in all contribution agreements between the federal government and individual Indian bands the use of any public funds be publicly reported and audited. I want members of this committee to know I agree that the use of public funds should be open to public scrutiny. But I wouldn't want anyone—first nations leaders, representatives, or individuals—to think this is all governance is about. My vision of governance is broader, more positive, and forward-looking. It is about improving the relationship between first nations members and their governments by creating the tools for transparent, responsive, and effective first nations governance.

We are doing everything we can to partner with aboriginal organizations at the community, regional, and national levels, so that we can go out jointly and hear from first nations people and share and consider the results together before proposing legislation that will be tabled, hopefully, sometime in the fall. At that point there would be a critical role for this committee in continuing the review and consultations on the draft legislation. Madam Chair, of course, it's a matter of discussion over the next number of months, but it is our intent to bring the governance legislation to this committee before second reading.

There's one twist, one we haven't completely committed ourselves to yet, that is, whether this will go to the Senate first or the House of Commons. But it will go before second reading. And the rationale for that is that I would like this committee to have the ability to make amendments of serious consequence, rather than sending it to the committee at second reading, which means it's an agreement in principle and you can basically only toy around on the fringes—we all know how legislation works.

So I see your role as a committee as integral in making sure that what we hear in consultations and in further consultations you will have as a committee will produce a piece of legislation that will work and will meet the needs of aboriginal people who are under the Indian Act for many more years to come. And I hope the suggestion of sending it to committee before second reading indicates this is not a partisan issue. This is a very important relationship-building exercise, and we cannot afford having it portrayed as a partisan issue.

• 1140

So when this work comes to you in the fall, I hope you'll consider its importance. You'll be under a significant amount of pressure, because you'll be in a position to make major amendments to the legislation—if the first nations people themselves bring to your attention any flaws in it.

I want to bring that to your attention this morning, because I see the modernizing and the statutory basis as fundamental to furthering the aboriginal agenda. First nations people have made it clear that they need legislation that enables them to have transparent, accountable, and responsible local governance, as they work towards self-government.

The legislation we're contemplating will address government structures, band elections, and fiscal issues—including accountability to membership. It would not replace the entire Indian Act—I want to make that very clear. Many sections of the Indian Act are of a different nature. If you have a chance to read it, you'll see what I mean.

But this would be a building block for self-government, and we will have to be careful in its construction. The intent is not to impinge on aboriginal and treaty rights, including self-government, or on the longer-term processes we're putting in place in these areas. What the first nations governance legislation initiative will do is provide the critical capacity to manage large and complex programs and, if the community chooses, to move forward on the path to self-government under the “inherent right” policy.

By the fall, it is my intention to introduce legislation that will give band governments the tools they need to overcome social and economic challenges and improve living conditions on reserves. We have heard about the need for progress on issues like the rights of first nations members, women's rights, and voting rights. These are practices that connect band members to their own governments, and getting governance right will help us to move forward on other priority areas of our agenda—priorities outlined in Gathering Strength.

For example, one of our primary objectives is to encourage economic development. In doing this, we recognize that capacity is as critical as capital. We cannot attract private sector support if the governance climate is not secure and accountable.

So strengthening governance creates and sustains the conditions for social and economic development. It provides a framework to address all the various components that work together to create wealth, develop capacity, and improve the quality of life for aboriginal people. And it will enable us to move forward on a wide array of priority areas—from modern comptrollership, to accountability, to gender equality.

Madam Chair, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the Indian Act is presently before the courts in about 200 different court cases. One of the major court cases before the judiciary now deals with aboriginal women's rights—and/or the lack of them—in the Indian Act. I want to bring that to your attention early in the process here, before the summer recess and leading towards the fall, to give members a heads-up to think about this.

You will be getting a lot of representation from aboriginal women about the lack of charter compliance and equality within the act. As you can imagine, the act is 130 years old and has only been amended once in a large way, in 1951. Since then, things have changed dramatically vis-à-vis aboriginal women and their rights in this country. So as a committee, you will have an equally important role in looking at that issue. I want to bring that to your attention, because I see that as fundamentally important to the work.

It will also support our work in other critical areas, such as the First Nations Land Management Act and the proposed first nations financial institutions—referred to on pages 27 and 28 of the Report on Plans and Priorities. This is another exciting initiative that I expect could lead to legislation as early as the fall, and which I look forward to discussing with members.

• 1145

Madam Chair, this integrated approach—founded on strong first nations governance—could provide aboriginal communities with the necessary tools to build the means and capacity to effect meaningful change. At the end of the day, that is our overarching goal. It seems to me it's been a long time coming, and a lot of work has been done. But we're now at a point where my role and your role interact. I think yours is a very important one.

We are working with first nations people to ensure that they attain a quality of life comparable to that of other Canadians. We are determined to both create and share opportunity. While there is no denying that there are still many challenges to overcome before fully achieving this objective, there can also be no question that we are well on our way to a better future. I'm honoured to be able to play a part in this historic process.

With that, Madam Chair, I look forward to answering your questions. I thank you very much for this opportunity to put a few facts on the record. In the next hour or so, I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to put many more.

Thank you.

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

I'm not sure who's going to start. Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Good morning, gentlemen. It's good to see you here today.

I understand I have about seven minutes, and I have about seven hours of questions I'd like to ask, so I'm not sure where to even begin. But I think one word the minister used often in his presentation was “accountability”—and I do believe that's where we need to start when we talk about making changes. I certainly agree with the minister that this is not a partisan issue. It just can't be.

On many of the reserves, serious conditions exist—though of course not on all of them. And please don't think I'm referring to reserves as an all-encompassing thing. I've been on many reserves across this land, as have you, gentlemen. I've been in the homes of the grassroots people, which are in a sad state. I've met with women who have lost sons and daughters to suicides and prisons. I'm sure you would all agree there are some serious problems that need to be addressed.

We're looking for the word “accountability” to become a real thing in the eyes of this government, and we should immediately start doing what we can to enforce existing legislation to get some accountability. I want to start with a fact that I know a number of aboriginal people have reported to the minister, and have told many of us—that they are continually denied access to financial data on the funds expended by chiefs and councils, on behalf of the federal government. We all know this does not meet the conditions set out by the government.

I'm going to ask the minister: are Indian band members denied audited statements and reports?

Mr. Robert Nault: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think this is an extremely important question—one we've been asked many times, and one that's not overly difficult to answer.

The approach taken by the department—because of Montana, of course, and cases where we have consolidated audits—is that audits cannot legally be released to the general public at this time. There are third-party interests and other sources of revenue in those audits that are very much a private matter between the community and its members.

The department's policy is that if a member seeks an audit from a community, that member first has to prove membership in that particular community. We check it out, to make sure the individual is a member of that particular band. If individuals or coalition members want an audit from a band they have nothing to do with, then no, they cannot get a copy of that particular audit.

But if they're looking for an audit of their own band, the request is put to the band through the elected officials. If that audit is not forthcoming within a reasonable time, our department produces the audit ourselves and sends it to the individual. That's the way the process works.

• 1150

On occasion, we have confronted some reluctance in our regions, though I think I have corrected that. My staff send the audits directly to the individuals, as long as we are comfortable that they are in fact band members. But in some cases we do have difficulty establishing membership, because some band membership lists are based on custom and we do not have a clear idea of who the band members are. That becomes their authority under the custom. So it's a little more complicated than Mr. Thompson portrays.

But to set his mind at ease, I want to report to the committee that starting next fiscal year, all the audits will be structurally changed and made available to taxpayers and the general public. Those audits will now be “decoupled”—the information in them will be separated, so that all public moneys transferred to first nations will be there for anyone to see, as a matter of public record. This will start in the fiscal year 2002-2003. The process is now ongoing. It will not wait for governance, because governance is not about accountability in that specific sense.

Madam Chair, I have had the opportunity to see these audits, because of my position. Quite frankly, the amount of fuss made over them is not worth the politics. These audits are done by professional organizations, chartered accountants hired—as by any other business—to do audits that meet the standards our country has set. These audits are appropriately done, and when there are qualifications, then we check out the particular areas brought to our attention.

But most of the time, more than 90% of the time, you'll see we have virtually no problems in the audits. I look forward to putting them in the honourable member's hands, so we can put to bed once and for all this whole issue of lack of accountability for government money going to the first nations. In fact, it's the complete opposite.

So I look forward to very soon giving him some 800 audits to read on a nightly basis. He will be very comfortable, as I am, that these audits do meet the standards of the Government of Canada.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I'll be glad to get those audits. It would be pleasant to see them. I understand, then, that the minister is telling me that the audits for the past year are all in, and everything is looking good. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Nault: That's correct.

Mr. Myron Thompson: They're all in from all the reserves across the country?

Mr. Robert Nault: Except for one or two.

Mr. Myron Thompson: If that's the case, then, it wouldn't be hard to get access to these audits immediately.

Mr. Robert Nault: By law, Madam Chair, the member is not allowed to have the audit.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I didn't say I should have them—but the members of the reserves who couldn't get the audits before, could they get them now? It would be safe for me to tell them so?

Mr. Robert Nault: Yes, you can. If they're not getting their audits, as I said before, all they have to do is write me a letter. As long as they're band members of that particular community, I will make sure they get the audits.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I have one other concern, and then I'll pass on.

The Chair: We're at our seven minutes. But we'll get back to you.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the Minister and Mr. Shanks for appearing before the Committee today. Like Myron Thompson, I think I will probably find the time available too short, but we will use whatever time we have.

Minister, I was a little surprised to note that in your opening remarks today, and in the speech you made yesterday, you made no mention of the Erasmus-Dussault report. This is a clear example, in my opinion, of what one of the greatest statesman of our century, Georges Clémenceau, once described: when you want something done, either you do it, or you strike a committee.

• 1155

I think it's really too bad that we are proceeding in this piecemeal fashion without ever implementing the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault report. Both the recommendations and the report as a whole were widely accepted by the First Nations and the various stakeholders. I don't understand why, in the time that has elapsed, all kinds of new policy initiatives have been presented dealing with the First Nations without there ever being any reference made to the Erasmus-Dussault report or any confirmation that the recommendations will be acted on. Can you explain to me why the Erasmus-Dussault report seems to have disappeared from the radar screen?

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: Madam Chair, I've heard this comment before from a number of people in commentaries across the country. RCAP has not been shelved, and as a matter of fact, we have responded through a major policy initiative called Gathering Strength. On a yearly basis we report through Gathering Strength to members of Parliament as to the recommendations and the issues we're dealing with based on those recommendations. Is it factual that there are a number of recommendations that have not been implemented? Yes, that's true. If you read the RCAP report from cover to cover, you will find there are some 260 recommendations that include the provinces. I cannot implement those recommendations without the permission or authorities of the provinces at the table as relates to those recommendations.

We're attempting, of course, to work with our partners, not only first nations communities, but the provinces and territories, to build, as I said, some 80 tables that are working on self-government through the inherent right, to move towards what RCAP has suggested, to give the kinds of governance and/or jurisdictional clarity that were suggested in some of those recommendations.

To suggest, as the member did, that this government has completely ignored RCAP is not factually correct. I would certainly like him to give me the specifics of a broad statement like that, and I would be more than willing to respond in detail on the specific issues as to whether we are implementing the particular recommendation in some fashion or we're not, and for what reason. I would be very willing to supply that information, because we are moving, through Gathering Strength, on a large number of those recommendations. RCAP suggested improvements to housing, improvements to infrastructure, improvements to education. All of these issues, as I mentioned to you in my comments, we are moving on as quickly as our resources will allow us. Are we putting in as much as has been recommended by the report? I would argue that may not be the case, but we are moving in our budgets to improve upon that to some extent.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, I can assure the Minister that in the next few days, he will be receiving specific examples in writing of recommendations or other cases that show that the Erasmus-Dussault report was forgotten a little too quickly, in my view. I would be very pleased to send him a letter containing those details.

I have another question, though. I would like to know whether what we heard is correct. It has been said that in terms of the daily administration, or governance, of First Nations' affairs, this initiative might be a way for the federal government to unload its fiduciary obligations on First Nations without actually providing them with the technical, and especially the financial, resources that go hand in hand with such obligations.

I am curious to know whether the Minister has had to respond to these criticisms that have been made by a number of people.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: I would, Madam Chair, make the statement that the governance discussions we're having will have no impact on our fiduciary obligations to first nations. That's not a part of the exercise. The exercise is very much concerned with the fact that we have an Indian Act that doesn't meet the modern needs of communities. We have a commitment as a government and as a society—I think from most areas of society—to move towards self-determination through self-government. But at the pace of negotiations on self-government, it will be another 60 years before we have all these communities outside the Indian Act. If we live with this act the way it is, with the changes the courts will make for us over the next number of years, we will in effect tie the hands of the communities, in a way of speaking, in respect of their ability to build an economy. So it's not an exercise in dumping responsibility or fiduciary obligations. It's an exercise in putting in a modern governance structure that meets the needs of both political and financial accountability.

• 1200

Of course, the obvious, main interest of any government is the ability to have enough resources to manage their affairs. I have acknowledged, not only in the media, but on many occasions, that this will be a hollow exercise if the government does not move at the same time to increase resources to governance. I've already this year started to move money to first nations communities, on the governance side 5%. It's my objective to move, at least as a minimum, 5% every year for this term, which would be, as you can imagine, somewhere around 20%, with the objective of trying to rectify the lack of resources to govern one's affairs.

I take partial blame, as part of the government. Some of the reason governments are not operating efficiently is that they do not have enough resources, enough capacity, to manage those major policy initiatives we've transferred to them. So I take exception when people suggest we are trying to download our responsibility. Under the Constitution we have fiduciary obligations for first nations, and changing the Indian Act will not change that obligation.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Do I have any time left?

[English]

The Chair: Let's move on to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here. Mr. Shanks, it's good to see you again. This is part of the briefing group that came to my office, and I found it very helpful to hear from them.

As you may have sensed from the reaction to your speech yesterday in the House of Commons, there's a cautious optimism on the part of a lot of Canadians, and certainly those of us here, that we may actually be moving forward with our first tentative steps towards realizing the goal of self-governance. I'm very heartened by that, personally, if we can count on it.

My question concerns the logistics of the consultation process you'll be undertaking. I understand you want it to be a multifaceted thing, with, I suppose, live town halls, telephoning, Internet, e-mail. My reservation and my question would be, how do you measure the weight of the various submissions, especially on the Internet? It can be manipulated by those.... Frankly, there are very real enemies of the issue of self-governance in this country. There's an active anti-Indian movement in this country that will oppose this. I'm worried about industrial sabotage of a sort, bombarding websites with messages against the concept. The logistical question is, are you bound by any kind of structure? If you hear one thousand times that this point A should go ahead and only fifty times to the contrary, are you going to be somehow bound by that input? Have you thought about how you might manage the intake of the submissions and weigh their relative merits?

Mr. Robert Nault: Madam Chair, through you to Mr. Martin, this is a difficult question to answer, because this government, and other governments historically, have never consulted aboriginal citizens and have always only consulted aboriginal leaders. So I don't have an answer for his question, because we've never attempted it before. Some aboriginal leaders are not very happy and have portrayed as not acceptable that I would choose to go directly and talk to aboriginal citizens. But I think, because of modern technology, we can consult aboriginal citizens, both on and off reserve, and we can consult the leadership at the same time. In consultations there's never, I suppose, a perfect balance as to how much consultation, how long, or what you're trying to do.

• 1205

I might explain our rationale for the three-pronged approach we're taking to this consultation by putting it this way to Mr. Martin and the rest of the committee. I accept the argument made by some members that taking forever to come into the House with a piece of legislation would be seen as a delaying tactic. We have a lot of information. We have a lot of best practices. We have a lot of information from different reports. I'm very much aware of all those reports, very much aware of the best practices. I've been to communities where they already have financial codes, they already have conflict of interest guidelines, they already have a public service that is operating very effectively and guidelines dealing with the public service and their elected officials. They're not based in law, but they're just putting codes in place and following them. So those best practices do exist, and we are not going to be reinventing the wheel. What we are going to be doing is taking the best practices and putting them in a piece of legislation.

So the first part of the consultation will appear to first nations and many to be short. It is going to extend from now till late fall. Then a piece of legislation will be drafted and sent to you as a committee. So the check and balance is really you as a committee. We will consult the best we can. We will write a draft piece of legislation with the best of intentions. We will expect your committee to consult in a very thorough manner, to see whether we did get it right and whether we didn't get snookered by people who might have another agenda. I think that check and balance is the way Parliament is supposed to work.

Then there's a third process—and keep in mind governments are always involved in this. The piece of legislation is only as good as its regulations, and so there will be a third consultation on regulations with the first nations. I hope you would see it the way I see it, that you can't have a cookie cutter, so that there will only be one kind of governance structure right across the country. There will be different kinds of governments in place, because of custom, tradition, and the needs of aboriginal people, depending on where they live and at what point in the continuum they are in their governance capacity. So we will build that in. In fairness to the communities, we do not want to overload them with a governance structure such that they may not be able to deliver because they only have 200 people in their community. We will have to be very vigilant. This is a two-and-a-half-year process. I think within that timeframe, with your help, we should be able to get it right.

But going back to the original part of the question, I'm very keen to see how we can consult with first nations citizens, no matter where they live. I'd like to see what they think. I'd like to hear what they have to say. Some members of Parliament have suggested that the leadership don't represent their constituents. We're going to find out whether that's true. I doubt—

Mr. Pat Martin: They say the same thing about us.

Mr. Robert Nault: Yes, they do on a regular basis, that I admit.

So that, hopefully, will explain what we're attempting to do and why your role is going to be so important to this overall process.

Mr. Pat Martin: Do I have any time left, Chair?

The Chair: Nine seconds.

Mr. Pat Martin: A luxury of time with what we're used to.

Mr. Robert Nault: Short question, long answer.

Mr. Pat Martin: You've mentioned that there are over 200 cases in litigation currently, court cases going through. Why? Is this because negotiations have broken down? Why are we faced with that level of being dragged through the courts, when I sense there's willingness on the government side at least to come to governance agreements? Are most of these court cases treaty negotiations or self-governance issues?

Mr. Robert Nault: No. We have many more court cases than the 200 I mentioned. Litigation dealing with the Indian Act alone is about 200. We have many more court cases than that on specific claims and things. But these claims are all aboriginal people taking the Indian Act to court on membership and whether it's acceptable to courts under the charter that we decide as a government who is an Indian and who isn't—if I can be that blunt with you—and we do do that under the act. There are many cases dealing with aboriginal women and matrimonial real property rights, things that don't exist in the act. So what you're finding is that people are challenging the act itself, because it has been around so long that it has a lot of flaws in it.

• 1210

In fairness, ministers have sat here before, tried to make amendments to this act, and have failed. I'm not expecting this will be an easy process. There are many first nations leaders who will tell you, as opposition members, that you shouldn't support the government's initiative, because that's not their interest, the Indian Act, and they want to talk about other things. I have chosen to work with first nations and to consult as best I can, with the understanding that we do need an interim step towards some of the other issues that are taking quite a long time to develop. If we don't, the act will be changed itself by the courts.

It was changed just lately, as you know, with the Corbière ruling, which the Supreme Court made on who has voting rights. As you know, the courts ruled that on reserve and off reserve, people have a right to vote in elections. That has made our life at the department very difficult, because those changes are very expensive and very political. They've changed the political dynamics in communities. In some communities, if you can think this through—and the majority of communities are in this category—the lion's share of the band population are off reserve, not on. So all of a sudden the off-reserve population have the ability to make decisions that affect on-reserve populations.

That's just one example of how the courts can change a relationship that has a major impact on the department and, obviously, on the Government of Canada with its first nations citizens. That's why I think it's more appropriate for us, as politicians, both aboriginal leaders and those of us in this room, to make those changes, instead of having the courts do it for us.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Mr. Guy St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, I am pleased that you are able to be with us this morning and I particularly want to mention the fact that during the Easter break, you shortened your own holiday to go to Chisasibi-Mistissini to see for yourself the kinds of housing problems they're experiencing there. If a Minister takes the time during his holiday to go and visit with our Aboriginal friends, I think he deserves our thanks. So, I wanted to personally express my thanks.

As you know, there is currently a very serious housing crisis among Aboriginal people in Quebec and other regions of Canada, whether we're talking about the Crees, the Inuit or the Algonquins. You also know that under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed on November 11, 1975, we have fiduciary responsibilities. As signatories of this agreement, Quebec and Canada must work together to find ways to improve housing or resolve housing issues experienced by First Nations.

You certainly noted a number of very serious problems. There is no housing. People in the south say that the Aboriginal people, like the Crees and the Inuit, receive money for the construction of housing, but it's important to realize that everything comes from the south: the lumber, the windows, the doors, and so on. Non-Aboriginal Canadians are the ones making the money and keeping their economy going.

The housing crisis is a major problem in Canada, particularly in James Bay, among the Inuit, and in remote regions. Are there other departments working with you on this? You are doing your share, and I know it isn't an easy problem to resolve. Sometimes there are good discussions, and you are always there to find answers.

I would like to know what your intentions are in relation to other Cabinet plans, and especially as regards Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Last year, under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Inuit received $100 million for housing; the same amount was not given to the Crees, however.

I would be interested in hearing your comments.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: I want to thank the member for what is probably the most difficult question put to me whenever I travel in the communities.

• 1215

I'm sure most of you are aware, or should be aware, that I have also the responsibility as a member of Parliament to represent 51 first nations myself. I have the honour and the distinction of representing the most first nations of any MP in the House of Commons. So not only as a member of Parliament, but as a minister, one of the issues I am asked to deal with every time I'm in a community is how I am going to help them with the housing issuing and the resources necessary to bring the housing infrastructure up to par with what we would expect as a country.

With that in mind, I certainly am committed to continue to work toward improving housing. We're doing it from a number of different perspectives. In 1996 we brought in a new housing policy. The housing policy has a number of components in it, including the ability for first nations people to maintain their homes, have the capacity to maintain their homes, to put in a housing policy within the community that deals with a number of parameters, including expecting aboriginal people to put some of their own finances into their own homes. I think it's abundantly clear around this table that the Government of Canada will not be able to rectify the housing problems of aboriginal people right across the country, that we would expect aboriginal people would participate in making those improvements.

The members are aware that I have committed myself to put more money into housing. Through the Speech from the Throne the Government of Canada has committed itself. I can report to members that we are working diligently to do just that. We'll be reporting back to you more officially sometime soon, with not only CMHC, but also the Department of Indian Affairs, dealing with more steps to improve the housing for aboriginal people right across the country.

As we work our way through that, Madam Chair, I think it's important for people to know we haven't waited for the whole process of government. I have done what I could to create a new program, the emergency housing policy. The emergency housing policy was created by me to deal with a couple of issues that are unacceptable to me as an individual and to Canadians. That is, if we find that certain communities—and some of them are in the honourable member's riding—have health and safety issues, whether they be mould, whether they be poor quality, it's incumbent upon us not to have people living in those kinds of conditions.

This past fiscal year just ending we were able to put some $30 million into emergency housing right across the country, including in the member's riding, in some of those communities that had huge mould problems. Those mould problems are not unique to first nations communities; they're also prominent in some of the non-native communities, depending if you're close to the ocean.... In one particular area in southern Manitoba we have huge problems because of flooding in those communities. That has caused mould problems simply because in that particular region of the province the provincial government built dams for agricultural purposes, and now aboriginal lands are flooded on a regular basis.

So we have had to deal with those particular issues based on those policy decisions that were made many years ago.

With that, I hope to be able—in short order, in the next number of years—to deal with what I think are critical emergency housing issues so that we don't have families and children living in unsafe and unhealthy environments as we work toward the longer policy initiatives we have undertaken as a government through the Speech from the Throne.

We also, and Gordon can correct me if I'm wrong, are putting in somewhere of the neighbourhood of $170 million a year.

Mr. Gordon Shanks (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): About $160 million.

Mr. Robert Nault: It's $160 million a year on average out of our regular business line for housing on reserve. But it's still pretty obvious that we have quite a ways to go to get housing standards equal to housing standards in the non-native communities.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Madam Chair, I sincerely appreciate the comments...

[English]

The Chair: Sorry, we're out of time.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Madam Chair, could you put me down for the second round, please? Thank you.

• 1220

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Hinton. And this is the three-minute round.

Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to finally meet you, sir.

I have several questions. If I can only get an answer to one today, the question would be what is the legislative basis for Indian housing? And since it's funnelled through CMHC, it doesn't show on your budget. What's the actual cost?

I'm just going to keep rapid firing, if I can.

Mr. Robert Nault: Gordon can give you the exact numbers.

On the policy side, we do provide a housing subsidy to first nations people. The amount will depend on where they live and what the isolation factor is. For the sake of argument, it runs somewhere between $25,000 and $40,000, if I recall correctly, depending on where you live. It's based on the available money we have in the budget.

CMHC is a different process. If there are houses built on reserves through CMHC, it's rental housing. CMHC contributes a certain amount, and then after that the homeowner is expected to pay rent or rent to purchase, just as you would do in a non-native community somewhere else.

Minister Gagliano has a budget for housing and we have a budget for housing. It is in the estimates. Gordon, you might want to tell them the exact amount.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: What's the legislative basis for it, sir? That's what I asked.

Mr. Robert Nault: The legislative basis.... This is a policy of the Government of Canada, which of course doesn't always have to be a legal obligation. We believe it's important to have quality housing standards and quality housing in first nations communities for people who need it.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: But there hasn't been a law passed that says we should be doing this.

Mr. Robert Nault: You mean like a housing law?

Mrs. Betty Hinton: There's no legislation. I'm asking what the legislative basis for doing this is in the first place. I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing it; I'm asking you what the legislative basis is for doing it.

Mr. Robert Nault: It's a policy passed by cabinet.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Okay. The total of the land claims to my estimate....

Mr. Robert Nault: Gordon, do you want to get the numbers?

Mr. Gordon Shanks: The number for CMHC for the projected spending for the fiscal year we're in now is $303 million. As the minister said, the departmental spending is in the order of $160 million.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Okay.

I'm looking at page nine. The total of these claims over the actual and planned seven-year period is $2.5 billion, which does not include all the payments made prior to 1997-98. This is regarding land claims. Over the seven-year period, this is an average of 11.5% of the total departmental budget. That's a fair amount of money from the total departmental budget.

In reading all of the background information, I found that you have decided that you're going to have a separate group of people handle the land claims issue. I think that's an abdication of responsibility. I'm wondering why you would go that route. Why would you not take responsibility for the land claims issue as a federal government?

Secondly, there are so many people who have a vested interest in this outcome—business people, tourism people. I can speak from my own area: there's a ski mountain there where we've had nothing but trouble for eons. We need to come to a resolution to this. But you're not including people like ranchers, the tourism industry, the business industry in these land claims issues, and they all have a vested interest. I would like to know if that's going to change, since you're making change now.

Mr. Robert Nault: Madam Chair, first of all, I would report to the member that she's confusing two processes. One is the specific claims side, which are legal obligations of mistakes that were made in the past. We like to refer to Indian agents who had very creative minds.

I'll just give you a small example. We are encountering legal obligations for land that was taken from first nations in the early parts of this century and the last one, just for the sake of discussion today, and sold to third party interests after we had, through treaty agreements, guaranteed that the land would go to a first nation.

• 1225

So what happens—and that's what we call a specific claim—is the first nation goes to court. We do an assessment through the justice department, which is our normal litigation management process, and if it's viewed by the Government of Canada that we do have a legal obligation, that it was in fact a wrong and needs to be rectified, we obviously do an assessment on what the cost would be if we went to court and lost versus what we would pay to settle the claim. That is a very legal process, and that's how the specific claims process works.

What you're talking about in British Columbia is an issue dealing with treaty-making in modern times. British Columbia of course has the designation of being one of those areas that did not make treaty, as did other parts of the country, including my own. I live in Treaty 3.

Now it's much more complicated. We're dealing with a lot of third-party interests. But there is still a very strong legal position that first nation people have aboriginal rights that were not extinguished or changed through treaty-making, because there are no treaties.

If you talk to the private sector, as I have on many occasions in British Columbia, they are very supportive of treating-making because it brings certainty for business reasons. They are looking to us as government to fulfil our obligations to first nations. Whether we agree with it or not, that's our legal obligation. Secondly, most importantly, it will improve the economy, not only for first nations people but for the non-native people who live around it.

We do have a process for the business community. It's called TNAC. TNAC's process in British Columbia is unique; it's one of the few places in the country.... I have been to TNAC many times. You might want to have them come to the committee and give you an explanation of what their role is. They represent all the stakeholders, whether it be ranchers, whether it be foresters, whether it be miners. They all sit around the table to give advice to the government on land claims in British Columbia. It is a very transparent process. I'm looking forward to the continuation of that once the election is over.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I agree—

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'd really like to ask everyone to try to stick to their three minutes, because I know everyone has a lot of interesting questions.

Just for the record, for those of us who didn't know, TNAC is the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you for coming, Minister.

I think there are some very encouraging elements in the remarks you made to us. One can look also through part III of the estimates and be encouraged by the plans and priorities.

I guess what I'd like to focus on in the brief time I have is the consultation process you described. If I look at page 10 of your remarks, “We are doing everything we can to partner with Aboriginal organizations at the community, regional and national levels so that we can go out jointly and hear from First Nations people, and share and consider the results...”, at that point there would be a critical role for this committee in continuing review and consultation on the draft legislation.

I'm wondering first of all who “we” is. We know who we are as a committee. Is that “we” a kind of departmental “we”?

Secondly, why wouldn't one imagine a process that would meet the same objectives but involve the committee at an earlier stage? That is to say, let the “we” be us. Because if we're going to be trying to move this thing as expeditiously as we can, you need a forum and a venue and a place for all this stuff to come together. I thought we existed for that purpose. So if we were involved in the consultation process from the word go—of course I'm now volunteering the committee to work very hard, and they don't know the good news yet—

Mr. Robert Nault: And no summer off.

Mr. John Godfrey: Why shouldn't we be the forum for that? We might think of some models whereby we would have maybe ex officio members from the aboriginal committee who are not in Parliament. There may even be a model that was put forward by your predecessor, Ron Irwin, back in I think December 1996, when I think they were considering amendments to the Indian Act. I believe that process only got scrubbed because of the election in 1997. I could be wrong on that.

• 1230

First of all, it's about the place of Parliament in the public consultation process. Secondly, it's making sure there is one forum so that we're hearing all the information. Then we would be in a much better position to move forward on draft legislation.

Mr. Robert Nault: Madam Chair, I understand the interest of the member. I would make two comments. One, consultation in aboriginal communities is very different from what you might think. It's also extremely expensive because we are expected to go to every community. I don't think any member of Parliament here has time to do that. So my officials, working with the regional organizations of first nations leaders and their technical people, will be given the task of doing town halls and community meetings in every single first nation in this country. That's the consultation process in the next five or six months. I wasn't of the view that this committee was prepared to do that.

• 1235

If we don't do that, we will be criticized and accused of not consulting with individual first nations, which are all unique and different and have their own particular priorities and message that they might want to send to the Government of Canada.

That, Madam Chair, would be the rationale for why I chose the more humane second stage for the committee of looking at this after a little bit of groundwork has been done by the department, the first nations leaders themselves, and the first nations citizens who will be consulted off reserve.

As well as going to first nations communities, we will be doing major consultations in cities and towns right across the country that have large aboriginal populations in them. We will do some in Winnipeg and we may do some in Brandon and Regina, and it will go on and on and on. It's not only a very expensive issue but a very time-consuming one. I thought that my over 2,000 employees were better able to manage that than a very small group of MPs who are very busy.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Chair, perhaps I could begin by stating the conclusion I was coming to previously, during the first round. The Bloc Québécois will be more than willing to support any measure intended to give the Aboriginal people greater self-determination and greater control over their daily lives.

I want to assure you immediately that you can count on the full cooperation of my party with respect to any measure intended to attain that goal. However, I am sure you understand that our work is sometimes intended to improve on what you have proposed. Any suggestions we make will be constructive ones. That was how I wanted to conclude my earlier remarks.

In 1997 and 2000, the Auditor General referred to certain problems with respect to the health care provided to First Nations in various regions of the country. Recently, we witnessed the kinds of accountability problems associated with health care for First Nations in Manitoba.

First of all, I would like to know to what extent you, the Cabinet and departmental officials have played a role in developing and monitoring health programs for First Nations. What are the linkages between your department and Health Canada?

Also, are you aware of other cases of misuse of tax revenues by Aboriginal organizations, and specifically, monies intended for health care? What steps do you intend to take to ensure the problem does not recur?

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: First, Madam Chair, the Minister of Health has direct responsibility for aboriginal health. The budget is about $1.5 billion, somewhere in that neighbourhood.

Yes, we do have a relationship with Health Canada, and we interface in many areas, including the need to have good infrastructure, sewer facilities, and water, things such as that for health reasons. All the monitoring of health is done by Health Canada in cooperation with the department so that we can track the health issues of first nations people and make some decisions, when necessary, to move very quickly on potential health dangers, such as water quality. We do work cooperatively with them.

We do have a remedial management plan that deals with first nations that get into financial difficulty. We use the audits for more purposes than people in this room may be aware. Every region has the responsibility of dissecting the audits to see where problems may be starting to occur. Then we sit down with the first nation and talk to them about how to rectify those issues and to develop some sort of management plan to deal with it, and to help bridge the gaps in the administration of those dollars if we find them.

Of the total number of audits we do, about 4% of the communities are in the category of having some financial difficulties where we move in and help them. I'm not sure of the exact number, but it's a very small amount that are in what we call third-party arrangements, meaning a third party or the department runs their affairs completely. It's a very small amount. The total amount in third-party arrangements, of all the bands, is 29, and 41 are co-managed. Those that we are working with to help in some capacity number 112.

• 1240

So we do use the audits for those purposes, because we have a fiduciary obligation to make sure a community does deliver those programs, like education, social services, health care, to make sure people are not left, because of financial difficulties, without those kinds of programs that all Canadians take for granted.

The easiest way for me to explain the role of the minister and the department is that we deliver provincial-like services to first nations. What provinces do for municipalities, we do for first nations. When people ask about the budget, you might keep in mind that provinces do not, in the lion's share of cases, put any money into first nations. Therefore, as municipalities get resources from provinces, because that's their legal obligation, we do the same for first nations across the land. So those provincial-like services are: education, social services, health, infrastructure and the like.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to complete the comments I began earlier. I appreciate the Minister's comments with respect to budget allocations for housing in Canada. I found your answer absolutely fascinating.

I have four questions, Madam Chair, and I want the Minister to know he can send the answers to the Committee subsequently. My first question has to do with the Internet. You referred to this on page 8. The problem in remote regions, and particularly in Nunavut, Nunavik and remote regions of Quebec, is that charges for telephone service doubled this year, when Bell Canada decided that too many people were going on the Internet. So, they doubled telephone charges on that side, and now, we have a problem in the area with Bell Canada, that affects not only the Inuit, but also the people living in Nunavik.

My second question relates to omnibus air transportation. We know that the government is contributing between $18 and $20 million annually, through the Department of Indian Affairs, for transportation by boat of perishable and non-perishable goods. I know you wrote to Minister Chevrette in Quebec to request his participation, and I would like to know whether you have received an answer or not.

Thirdly, yesterday Mr. Chrétien and Ms. Copps announced that the government of Canada would be investing $760 million in the arts and culture in Canada. However, at 8:15 this morning, I received a phone call from Mr. Johnny Adams in Kuujjuaq. He told me they had put in an application for an interpretation centre relating to arts and culture. Last week, Quebec announced a contribution of more than $5 million for a convention centre, but funds still are required for the interpretation centre. They are very anxious—and we know that the cost will be $1.8 million—to see the government make a contribution in the area of Inuit art and culture.

My fourth question relates to your budget. You mentioned that the contribution made to the province of Quebec with respect to Cree and Inuit education, under the terms of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, was $65 million last year and $73 million this year. I would like to know whether you received an operational report from Quebec with respect to education initiatives undertaken under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. That's it.

[English]

Mr. David Chatters: That's the three minutes now.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes, three minutes, four questions.

The Chair: Mr. Minister, could you answer in forty seconds?

Mr. Robert Nault: Forty seconds or less.

Yes, we have corresponded with the different provincial and territorial governments on a foodstuffs program to reduce the cost of transporting products to the far north in ridings like the member's, and yours as well, Madam Chair. The Government of Canada is interested in making sure that healthy lifestyles are maintained, that people don't cut corners and buy junk food because it's cheaper and/or they can't afford fruits and vegetables and things that are more expensive that you have to buy from the south.

So the program would be operated and/or funded through the department, but I have been attempting to convince the provinces to cost share this with the Government of Canada, because it's a very expensive venture. At this stage, I've had very little luck, if I could be so polite. We certainly have no intentions of cancelling the commitment of the Government of Canada, but it's starting to become more and more expensive as we speak.

• 1245

I know you as a committee have had a number of presentations on the James Bay agreement. It's a fairly complex process to explain in a very short period of time, but I will suggest that we have an agreement with the Cree-Naskapi. Part of the agreement when it was originally implemented did not come with an implementation chapter, and part of the problem we're encountering is what we meant at the negotiating table, or what some of the clauses meant. So there's a big debate ensuing and negotiations going on, which include, of course, ourselves, the province, and the Cree-Naskapi—and in particular the Cree.

I'll give you one example, Madam Chair, of the issue.

There is an argument being made by the Cree that housing was included in the agreement. At this point the position of the Government of Canada is no, that's not the case. We're having a debate, of course, and are negotiating the interpretation of some of the clauses.

Those are the complexities of what we find ourselves having to deal with from time to time when we enter into self-government agreements of one fashion or another. Keep in mind that this was the first modern-day agreement we signed, and I think it's fair to say we're living through our initial experience of not putting everything in it and making it as clear as possible. But that doesn't mean we won't work our way through this with the Cree of northern Quebec in particular.

On the technology side, the member and I, and others who come from northern Canada, will tell you that we, as a government, including my department, Industry Canada, and others, are united in our interest in making sure that Canadians, no matter where they live, are technologically hooked up to be competitive in this century and beyond. It is a commitment of the Government of Canada. It's one we need to have fulfilled for very obvious reasons. This is a race with the rest of the world, and whoever is the most connected, I think, will be the most successful in the years to come. We are working very hard on trying to figure out how to make sure northerners are not left out of the loop. I would suggest to the member that not only myself, but the minister in charge of regional economic development, Mr. Cauchon, and Minister Tobin, are all vested with the responsibility of bringing technology to northern Canada.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a question stemming from the discussion before I go to my other question. On your consultation meetings that are taking place over the next number of months and over the summer, would the local MP in the riding be notified of the meetings in his or her riding, and would they be invited to attend? That's my question.

I'll ask the question I've been waiting ask to ask. You made reference in your comments, Mr. Minister, to the contract guarantee initiative and efforts to bring first nations into the modern contract situation, if you will, but it's the other side of that contract situation that I've had some disastrous experiences with in my riding. This is where a first nation contracts for services from outside the first nation to come in and do a job and then doesn't live up to the terms of the contract. In my particular case, in spite of the fact—and I checked—that the department had forwarded the funds for the particular project, the first nation failed to meet the obligation of the contract, and in one case in particular caused a bankruptcy of the firm that was doing the work. Is there some intention to change or remove first nations from the Indian Act so that in entering into contracts they will have to live up to the obligations of the contract from their side of the contract as well?

• 1250

Mr. Robert Nault: I get this question on a fairly regular basis, so I have a pretty standard reply. I won't get into the particulars of any case—it's private information—except to say that there are always two sides to every story. It's not unusual for the private sector, in doing work for another firm and/or another government, to have disputes that end up in court and are resolved in that fashion.

The Indian Act allows for that. For some reason, members of Parliament have been given the perception by certain contractors that they can't sue first nations. They can. I have seen it happen in my own riding on a number of occasions. I'm very familiar with it. But I'm also very sensitive to the issue that if people would check, on many occasions municipalities sue contractors or vice versa. So there's no difference. This is a private sector dealing, if you want to look at it that way, and the Government of Canada cannot, for all intents and purposes, take the legal responsibility for every contract a first nation enters into in good faith with somebody else without knowing the exact details.

I do want to report to you that I get a lot of complaints, especially when a non-native firm doesn't get a tender that they thought they would get and it happens to go to a first nations contractor. They feel it must have been cooked. But I want to inform this committee, as I have on many occasions, that we have one of the strongest tendering policies of any government agency and are prepared to defend it in this room and to give you details of it at any time.

Mr. David Chatters: I wasn't going down that road.

Mr. Robert Nault: No, but I just wanted to give you that information as well.

Mr. David Chatters: I would like to get details from you, and I'll approach you some other time.

Mr. Robert Nault: The last issue you asked me about is one I never thought of. Yes, it would make some sense if we could notify you. I personally have no difficulty with you being notified. As always, it's up to the chief and council to decide whether they will let you into their community, as a matter of respect. You would have to inform them and ask them if you could come, but I'll let you know when the meetings are being held so that you'll know where they are.

Mr. David Chatters: Just to finish the other issue, could I approach your department and get details on—

Mr. Robert Nault: Our tendering policy?

Mr. David Chatters: No, not the tendering policy, but how a contractor holds the first nation responsible through some kind of a court process or an appeal process. I would be most interested in that.

Mr. Robert Nault: Yes. We can explain the legal side of it.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay.

Mr. Robert Nault: You see, the issue you confront is that you can't seize property on a reserve. So if the property is very small—$10,000, $15,000, or something of that nature—it's not worth the contractor's while to go to court. But if it's a large sum, absolutely it's worth their while to go to court. The judge can seize a band's accounts and things of that nature and make them pay it back if there's a suggestion of wrongdoing. They are under the same legal system you and I are under. There's only one difference under the act, and that's dealing with the issue of property.

Mr. David Chatters: In my case it was over $1 million, so it certainly would be worthwhile to go to court. But I'll pursue that later.

Mr. Robert Nault: Sure. We'll be pleased to do that.

The Chair: I don't have anyone on the Liberal side, but I'd like to ask a question on women's rights. I know there was some work done on that issue. Especially when we were doing the Nisga'a treaty and then the First Nations Land Management Act, there were a lot of questions around women's rights.

When you go into governance consultations and there are some changes to women's rights, how will those affect the ones that are already covered by, let's say, the First Nations Land Management Act and the Nisga'a treaty? There are already provisions in those particular land claims. How will the two ensure that all the women will be treated the same, or have the same rights?

Mr. Robert Nault: In the Nisga'a treaty, if you recall, the charter applies, and the charter does not apply in the Indian Act. One of the big discussions you will have is, will the new governance structure be charter-compliant? Most of the cases before the courts that are dealing with the Indian Act deal with the charter itself.

• 1255

So you will see that is a very sensitive issue of individual rights versus collective rights, and you will have to get your head around that legally, because it's a very important issue for first nations people themselves.

What are being requested, obviously, by first nations women are their rights when there are separations and divorce and the whole issue of property and how that works on reserve.

The First Nations Land Management Act will be affected, obviously, by governance changes, because they're tied together under the Indian Act. Those bands that are entering into the Land Management Act will also have to comply with the new governance changes.

So I hope, Madam Chair, that answers your question as to not only the sensitivity of this, but also the complexity of it, as you work your way through it.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, then Mr. Finlay, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

I was going to raise the gender issue as well. In 1992 I went to the aboriginal round of the Charlottetown accord here. I remember the women outside picketing saying, we don't want you to institutionalize, with the Charlottetown accord, a situation that isn't good. In one of the groups of women we met with a woman was saying, in my community—and she was Ojibway from northwestern Ontario—the women are not even allowed to run for office or for band council. Everybody shook their head and said, what a shame that is, and she said, but the men aren't allowed to vote. So they had figured something out over hundreds of years in their community that worked very well.

Mr. Robert Nault: It must be working real well, then.

Mr. Pat Martin: Wouldn't the changes you contemplate interfere with cultural nuances like that? Wouldn't they find themselves then in violation of the amendments you intend to make? Or will there be flexibility, so it's not a cookie-cutter approach across the country?

Mr. Robert Nault: You'll also be aware—and this may be helpful, Madam Chair, as you work your way towards seeing the governance legislation sometime this fall, maybe doing some preliminary work—there are also some court cases dealing with the whole issue of elections and custom and whether they are acceptable, based on the laws of this country. So we will have to get our head around, with the aboriginal leadership, what is considered to be an acceptable kind of election process, dealing with custom. Otherwise, the courts, I think, will decide for us one way or the other whether certain custom codes meet the test. Again, you would run into that particular issue.

We also expect that we will be able to build regulations that have as much sensitivity as possible to the traditions and cultures of the first nations people we're dealing with. That's why your work is extremely valuable. The bill, I hope, would be based on certain acceptable principles. For example, let's talk about Mr. Thompson's favourite process, accountability. There are certain accountability standards that governments have to meet, and I would argue the first nations that have the capacity are meeting those standards, and those that are not we are helping. But they're not in law, they're in regulation. So we could put certain standards in the legislation and that would be fine, everybody would accept that. I don't think they would argue about it.

But on the issue of how elections work, you're going to have to be a little bit more sensitive and allow some differences. I think that's where the discussion will have to be with the leadership.

Then you will have to confront the issue that women will bring to this table, front and centre. They will argue that any changes should comply with the charter and with the international human rights—what do they call it?

Mr. Pat Martin: Conventions.

Mr. Robert Nault: Conventions. That is another issue they'll bring to your attention. That's the debate you'll need to have with all the different stakeholders.

The Chair: Thank you.

• 1300

I have Mr. Finlay and Mr. Thompson. We're very close to one o'clock, and I was hoping we would get through the votes on the estimates today too.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I'll be very brief, Madam Chair.

I want to thank you, Mr. Minister, for your time and your clarity. You've raised a couple of issues I want to go on with, but I'll have to do it another time.

You mentioned, when you were discussing the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report, the number of recommendations that involved more than just the federal government. Although I cannot say I read every word, I read a lot of it, and it seems to me that one of the recommendations by the commission to the first nations was to expect the government to deal absolutely differently with 630 first nations was not a very reasonable or sensible way of dealing with it, and first nations would have to get into some sorts of groupings for some of these matters, particularly where they're in the same province, the same municipality, or what have you. I wondered whether first nations recognize that.

Mr. Robert Nault: Yes, they do. I'll use the example of the 40 tables we're at in British Columbia, which represent about 70% of all the aboriginal people. There are 297 first nations in British Columbia, so you can understand that there are groupings. And with the 80 tables we're at across the country, they are all with groupings. We got away from the policy of the Conservative government a number of years ago, that of doing community self-government, because of logistics, the cost of negotiating one community at a time for self-government, and the efficiency of running government. It's pretty difficult to deliver a program that deals with child welfare or social services of any kind with 200 people, and it would make some sense to have that grouping. So we are doing that, as we speak.

That's an example of a recommendation we already are implementing, but my argument in front of the committee has been that it's going very slowly. We cannot afford to let a couple of generations pass under this act. It will have a dramatic effect on people's lives and it does restrict their abilities to create an economy, to create the capacity to govern. I think we need to look at that, as an interim step towards self-government, keeping in mind—I want to be very clear—that we have not changed our position on wanting first nations to get out of the act. We much prefer that they get into self-government, because it's more self-determining. But in the meantime, we'll work our way through this process. And you'll get a lot of first nations leaders telling you they don't support it and it's not worth their while, because they would much prefer another process. But I argue that this is necessary, and you'll get many people who'll argue the same thing.

The Chair: For the last question, I shall go to Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you.

Going back to accountability and the performance report of 2000, there's something that concerns me a great deal. Of the audits that were received back, 75% required no further action, no follow-up, according to this, but 25% did. That's over 200 audits that were received. As it's stated here, “where an audit indicated a problem, such as excessive indebtedness, an intervention was required”. So there are a lot of questions about that. Who's responsible for this debt? Is it the federal government? How will the money be repaid? Is this reported in public accounts as a contingent liability? What's the total sum at the present time of this debt? Why isn't this information made totally available? That to me is a big lack of accountability, and I'd like that explained.

Mr. Robert Nault: Let me see if I can deal with this one step at a time in the time that's remaining. I would be very willing to give the member a little more detail.

• 1305

Out of some 800 or so first nations audits, 33 were denied. That's about 4%. Another 172 were qualified, meaning we'll have to take another look at certain issues within the audits themselves, maybe ask the auditors. Sometimes those are pretty minor, but they necessitate our sitting down and having a serious chat—because that's our obligation. We're trying to make sure of things, nip them in the bud before they get out of hand.

If there are financial issues, we put the community on a remedial management plan, or a plan to repay the deficit—that will get them out of the deficit and back into the black. Deficits are repaid on an annual basis, based on their budgets. There is no liability to the crown. They're expected to pay debts out of the resources they get on a yearly basis, and they do that.

This is something I've said many times before, and I want to say it again: I find it extremely strange that some members find going into deficit strange. All governments go into deficit from time to time, and for very legitimate reasons.

Let me give you an example. If a community of 1,000 first nations people decides to build a community arena, they would have to go into deficit to fund that arena. That's a legitimate deficit that they will pay back over a period of time, and we should not concern ourselves with it. We do it in municipalities every day; we go out and debenture things and pay for them over time. That's how we pay for infrastructure that is very valuable to the community.

In many cases, the deficits we're dealing with are in that category. That's why I'm so interested in releasing these audits. You will find that the people running these communities are very responsible, and are building infrastructure that we don't supply money for.

For example, this department does not give money for recreational facilities. They go out and borrow that money, and pay it back over time, or if they have third-party funds or businesses of their own, they'll get money from those and build arenas or whatever for their own children. When you have a large young population, you would imagine the pressure on those councils to deliver recreational facilities for their community members.

I bring that to your attention just because of the suggestions by some people that because there's a deficit, there was somehow mismanagement. I was on municipal council in my late twenties, and we used to debenture millions of dollars to build infrastructure—and nobody accused us of mismanaging.

So the department is aware of this, though because of the Montana case we're not allowed to release this to the public. But I will fix that for you shortly, and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that first nations governments are very responsible with the resources given to them by the taxpayers of Canada to run and manage their affairs.

Thank you very much for allowing me to say a few words on something that's always important to us all. I look forward to coming back very soon.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Minister, for coming to speak with us today.

I'd like to ask the members if they would like to vote on the estimates, so we can report these votes back to the House while we have a quorum. Otherwise, if Mr. Chatters leaves, we're won't have a quorum.

I now call votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25, L30, 35, 40, 45, and 50.

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Administration Program

Vote 1—Program Expenditures $72,901,000

Indian and Inuit Affairs Program

Vote 5—Operating expenditures $272,735,000

Vote 10—Capital expenditures $35,800,000

Vote 15—Grants and contributions $4,285,133,000

Vote L20—Loans to native claimants $32,853,000

Vote L25—Loans to First Nations in British Columbia for the purpose of supporting their participation in the British Columbia Treaty Commission Process $37,840,000

Vote L30—Loans to the Council of Yukon First Nations for Interim Benefits to the Yukon Elders $400,000

Northern Affairs Program

Vote 35—Operating expenditures $84,729,000

Vote 40—Grants and contributions $53,105,000

Vote 45—Payments to Canada Post Corporation $15,600,000

Canadian Polar Commission

Vote 50—Program expenditures $890,000

(Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25, L30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall I report these votes to the House?

• 1310

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.