:
Thank you,
monsieur le président.
There's no place more important for me to be this morning than here, although there are important things happening in the House as well. I realize all of us are torn between making those choices. We're delighted to be here, of course.
[Translation]
I wish to thank members of the standing committee for welcoming me to talk with you about the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's 2009-2010 Main Estimates—which provides us another opportunity to discuss the government's agenda for aboriginal and northern Canadians.
[English]
As minister over the past two years, I've had the privilege of visiting first nations and Inuit communities across the country and talking at length with aboriginal and northern leaders. What I've seen and heard has confirmed for me that I believe we are on the right track. We are making headway. We are addressing the pressing needs of aboriginal people and northerners in real, meaningful ways. We're building important infrastructure, resolving long-standing land claims, and improving access to better-quality services. We're helping communities and people across the country to look to the future with hope. I believe the members of this standing committee are active players in our success. You've been studying and reporting on priority and timely issues. You've accelerated critical legislation and you have collaborated to best serve northerners, Métis, and members of first nations and Inuit communities across Canada, and for that I thank you.
In particular, I want to thank you for your support and rapid approval of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. It is delightful to see that move quickly. We waited a long time for that, and it's nice to see that move through the House and hopefully on to the Senate shortly. I'm also pleased that Bill C-5 has received royal assent. That is due, in large part, to the work here of this committee, and I want to thank you for that support.
Last night we had a vote in the House of Commons. I think we dodged a bullet, frankly, on Bill C-8. Frankly, I'm unsure exactly what happened between the time of the speeches in the House talking about the bill and the motion to hoist the bill, which would effectively have killed it. I read through your speeches, and many of you gave really passionate speeches about the need to address the concerns, especially of aboriginal women, when it comes to matrimonial property rights. Bill C-8 is an effort to not only address matrimonial property rights in a way that would allow especially women and children the protection that all other Canadians take for granted, but it was really an opportunity to put in place a mechanism to allow first nations to put in place their own culturally sensitive laws on their own lands without interference by the federal government.
My hope is that we can get back to business. I urge all parties to deal with the subject matter itself. I'm still hopeful that we can deal with that in the House, get it into committee, and have the good study of it that many of you have said you would like to proceed with. I would hope that this will be possible now as we get back to that.
Moving on past Bill C-8, we are committed to addressing the legacy of residential schools, speeding up the resolution of specific claims, and ensuring that safe drinking water is available to all members of first nations and Inuit communities. Our resolve is to tackle these specific areas because we believe it will enable communities to heal, to grow strong, and to plan for the future. Those are our three priority areas in these main estimates, three areas where we will focus our resources and our efforts in the coming year. But we must also continue to build on our more successful programs and services and continue to renovate those that may be falling behind. We must use tools to help grow local economies, to ensure access to safe and reliable drinking water, to build and repair schools and homes, and we must use these tools to enable aboriginal people to lead healthier and more fulfilling lives. We have set out, I believe, a clear, prudent plan.
Mr. Chairman, my department's main estimates for 2009-10 are an important part of that plan. The main estimates for this fiscal year are part of the sound, well-balanced approach we are taking to serve all Canadians. In the main estimates, roughly $6.9 billion is allocated to programs and services that address the critical human needs of aboriginal peoples and northerners. You will notice that this figure is an increase of some $666 million, more than 10% over last year's estimates. Allow me to explain why.
This year the estimates include $286 million for the Office of Indian Residential Schools Resolution of Canada. The responsibility for this office was transferred to my department in June 2008. Also new in this year's estimates are three other critical investments: $243 million to further implement provisions of the specific claims action plan; $138 million to continue taking action on the first nations water and waste water action plan; and an additional $93 million for ongoing programs that provide basic services to members of first nations and Inuit communities.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, these new investments will serve all northerners, Métis and members of first nation and Inuit communities.
[English]
Another vital element of our approach is to connect our aboriginal and northern agenda to the economic action plan set out in the January budget. Through the economic action plan, the government is dedicating more than $1.4 billion over two years to priority issues that impact the well-being of aboriginal peoples. More specifically, the government is dedicating $200 million to skills development and job training to ensure that members of first nations, Métis, and Inuit communities have the necessary tools to take part in and excel in Canada's workforce; $400 million to service residential lots and build, renovate, and remediate housing on reserves; $515 million to construct schools, ensure access to safe drinking water, and improve health, policing, and other vital infrastructure on reserves; and another $325 million to nurture partnerships with aboriginal organizations and provincial and territorial governments—essential partnerships that help deliver health programs and child and family services to first nations and Inuit communities.
In all, more than $535 million, over one-third of the $1.4 billion total, will flow through my department over the next two years—$260 million this year and the balance next year. I should note that the $260 million for this year is not included in the main estimates. It will be incorporated into the supplementary estimates, but I wanted to give an overview of it today in case there are questions on it. Supplementary estimates (A), for example, which were tabled on May 14, account for roughly $253 million of the $260 million for this year.
Through Canada's economic action plan, the government is investing more than $500 million in the north—funding that will benefit all Canadians, including aboriginal peoples. The greatest share of that funding—$200 million over two years—is to renovate and build much-needed housing in the territories. Other major initiatives include $50 million over five years to establish a regional development agency that will support economic growth in the north and $90 million over five years to revitalize the strategic investments in northern economic development initiative, a core suite of highly successful programs that my department has long delivered and that the new regional development agency will continue to deliver, once it's up and running.
This government also remains committed to Arctic science and will invest $87 million over two years in northern research facilities. Preliminary work has started towards the establishment of a Canadian high Arctic research station.
Finally, the government will invest $59 million over two years to stabilize the food mail program to provide access to healthy food in isolated northern communities.
Altogether, between my department's main estimates and the economic action plan, the Government of Canada's clear, prudent plan to meet the needs of northerners and aboriginal peoples totals $7.3 billion. As you may already know from the first report to Canadians on the implementation of the economic action plan in March, the government has already begun to allocate these funds. I've already identified and announced all of the projects for schools and water facilities and all of the Arctic science projects. They've all been announced, we are moving briskly to implement, and I would be pleased to take questions about them.
With the help and support of this committee, Mr. Chairman, we will continue to address the vital needs of northerners, of Métis, and of members of first nations and Inuit communities.
[Translation]
We will continue to ensure that every Canadian can achieve his or her potential and contribute to the future of our great country.
[English]
Thank you very much to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all committee members.
I am now more than happy to take any questions you may have.
:
Minister, I'm going to ask my three questions. If you would, just write them down and then go ahead and answer.
First, as you know, a couple of weeks ago there was a land claim implementation conference here. Jean and Todd and I attended, and the anger was palpable. People were very angry; hundreds of delegates said the land claim implementation system is just not working. An example was that one first nation was told they couldn't set up an agency that is allowed in their land claim. The department is breaking the law, basically.
The second question is on the damning report that just came out on the schools. I'm sure you're prepared to talk about that.
The third question is related to the First Nations Statistical Institute, vote 45. On March 23, 2005, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, Bill C-20, received royal assent. Four years later, is the First Nations Statistical Institute operational? If not, why not? Wouldn't you expect it to be operational? Wouldn't you agree that in the face of serious concerns about quality of life of first nations vis-à-vis other Canadians, the work of this institute is required urgently?
Thank you for coming, Minister.
:
Thank you, Mr. Bagnell. I appreciate those questions and I appreciate your ongoing--which I can vouch for--questions to me. Hopefully we can get you some of the answers as we go through this.
I met with the land claims implementation coalition in March. I did meet with representation of the coalition, and we discussed in broad terms the report they were going to table at that time. We talked about the need to better implement not just the land claims agreements we have, but also the renewals of them. This is a relatively new thing for Canada in recent years, and I've been saying since I've had this job that we need to do a better job, frankly, as a government and as a country in dealing not only with land claims and their ongoing implementation, but also with the renewal process. Many of the land claims, especially the earlier ones, didn't have the kind of detail written into the contract, if you will, that said here's how we deal with these problem areas. We're getting much better at that.
Some of the renewals that we've been able to accomplish and some of the new mandates I've had from cabinet deal with some of the critical issues that the land claims coalition has pointed out as systemic kinds of problems.
I agree with much of what they say in that we need to do a better job and that the renewal is critically important, because it's during that process, whether it be a five-year, a six-year or a ten-year process, that you identify the gaps. As I mentioned, I think we're getting much better at saying here's how we're going to address it.
I don't dispute the need to do better. When I was up in your turf the other day, up in the Yukon, I did meet with Chief Carvill. That's one example of the Yukon first nations that have a list of ongoing concerns, with which I know you're very familiar. Again, they relate to first nations exercising the rights that are theirs under the original land claims agreements and then saying that they're now ready to proceed to the next step. They want to deal with child and family service agreements or they want to take control now that they have the capacity to do more things that should be under their control.
We need to find ways to make that happen for them, and that comes with doing a better job, especially on renewals. I think we are doing a better job. For example, in the Tsawwassen treaty, which is not exactly the same, there's so much more detail, so much more in there. The agreement we had with the James Bay Cree, for example, talks about everything from.... The Cree-Naskapi act that we're debating in the House right now deals with mediation services, how we deal with problems. Instead of leaving it to the courts or a confrontational system, we detail how we're going to deal with this, and I think we're making vast improvements.
:
The FNSI are now up and operating. They've sent me their corporate plan so they are functioning. The board has met with the deputy minister, and they are proceeding with their corporate plan down that path. There's a process in place to get a chief statistician now as part of their corporate plan. Obviously that's part of what they need to do.
I absolutely believe it is a critical option. There's no one way forward for first nations, but it is one of a series of very good options for first nations to take advantage of information. It builds capacity and allows them to take control more and more. It's just like the First Nations Land Management Act and the First Nations Finance Authority. There's a series of things that allow first nations to move ahead.
So the institute is up and running. They have a corporate plan and I have approved that plan. When their chief statistician comes on board they'll be able to do more of the tangible work that's necessary for first nations interested in accessing their services.
The last point you made was on the school report on the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I don't doubt there may be more questions on that, so if I don't answer them all here, we'll get to them.
I saw the report for the first time yesterday. It's obviously very technical and lengthy. I've asked officials to review not only the recommendations but some of the data. Frankly, there are some mistakes in the data. Either the information wasn't available or it wasn't clear. So we will respond to the report.
This analysis was done before Budget 2009. There was a gap noted in spending on schools. A good part of that gap, in my opinion, was addressed by the Budget 2009 action plan. It allowed us to top up the amount of money we were spending on school infrastructure. That allowed me to make the announcement on the 13 school projects this spring.
We'll have to analyze the rest of it and get back to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. As I say, there are some errors in it, but it deserves a good analysis and we'll be doing that.
Bill C-8, to briefly mention it, after last night's vote, is still before the House in its current form. My hope is that we can agree in principle that we need to deal with this issue. That's usually how we consider votes at second reading. Then it will come to this committee. I'm sure you'll have much to say about it, but my hope is still that we can make progress on it and agree in principle that we need to do something to address matrimonial property rights and pursue the subject. It's a gap in the law that needs to be filled.
I believe passionately that this is a case in which the perfect is the enemy of the good. This is a good bill, changed much with the influence of and in consultation with first nations. There are people who say it's not perfect, and that may be true, but perfection has been very elusive on this. It's been going on for many years—decades. People always want something a little bit different, a little more perfect.
My opinion is that allowing first nations to enact their own laws on reserves to cover the subject will lead to each one being slightly different, but will cover the matrimonial property rights. In my opinion, this is the closest we're going to get. I fear that if we search for perfection, we will never deal with this important issue. I urge people to consider that.
That being said, on the treaty implementation there are a couple of things.
In the Specific Claims Tribunal agreement there was a side agreement signed with the national chief that dealt with treaty implementation issues. In fact, we had our first-ever treaty conference in Saskatoon, which I spoke at, last year. It was a huge conference. Following that, the Assembly of First Nations, for one, and other groups as well, have taken the information that was gained from that conference. The Assembly of First Nations, for example, have passed a series of motions for their own organization for studying this subject matter and putting forward proposals for moving ahead. We've been working with first nations to do this, especially with the Assembly of First Nations, in this case.
There are other things in the works as well. For example, in Ontario there is a move afoot to see whether we need some sort of treaty commission in Ontario, what it might look like, and what involvement the Ontario government might have. Often it's federal-provincial-first nations issues that are stake. Those sorts of things are being discussed actively right now.
All recent treaties have access to mediation and arbitration to deal with treaty issues. That's the modern reality. Increasingly, whether we're talking about the numbered treaties or modern treaties, all of us are looking more and more at ways to stay out of the courts. The courts are always a place to go, if necessary, I suppose, and that's a fail-safe measure, but increasingly everyone is looking for either mediation or arbitration opportunities to try to deal with the issues. I think we are making progress on this. We'll have further follow-up on the treaty implementation with the Assembly of First Nations, as per the agreement.
The first issue deals with the $20 million in the budget for extending the tripartite agreements under child and family services. I think that's the $20 million you're referring to—for child and family services, is it not?
Let me start by asking, if I may, to correct the record. This has to do with a question Ms. Crowder asked me in the House of Commons. I mistakenly said that we had agreements in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Prince Edward Island already. That's not true; it's actually Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia. I apologize. That was just a heat-of-the-moment, 35-second answer, Ms. Crowder, and I apologize for it.
This $20 million will allow us to complete the deals on child and family services with two more provinces and first nations in those provinces in an ongoing fashion. It will change the child and family service process from one of interdiction and taking children away, frankly, to one of prevention, working with first nations in those provinces to use the best of the provincial services, and working with first nations in a culturally sensitive way. I think we're very close to signing on two more provinces, which will, as I said in the House, get us halfway there—we'll have five of the provinces done—and we're hoping to do it very quickly.
I too want to quickly address Bill C-8, matrimonial real property.
I think you're right, Mr. Minister, that there is a willingness to deal with this long-outstanding issue. Of course, the problem is the how. I was very passionate in my speech in opposition to the amendment that was proposed; however, in the interim, first nations leaders from across the country indicated quite clearly that they wanted that amendment supported.
I think the issue becomes how we tackle matrimonial real property. First nations people across this country feel that the consultation process has not been appropriately conducted. There may be differences of opinion around that, but they're very clear about it. I think there are a number of other ways we could tackle this without ending up in the kind of controversy we've had.
As always, in the past you've agreed to respond in writing to any questions that we couldn't have answered in committee. I'm presuming you'll do the same, so I have a number of questions, and some of them are probably fairly straightforward.
The government expense plan indicates—the page isn't numbered, but it's on the page after 1-12—that part of the decrease in the budget is from the sunsetting of the first nations SchoolNet. I wonder whether there are plans to deal with that.
Page 15-10 in the estimates indicates that “Contributions to First Nations for the management of contaminated sites” is going to be substantially reduced from last fiscal year. Could you comment on whether it's a fact that there are fewer contaminated sites? I went back to an old press release saying, “Dozens of reserves could contain abandoned military explosives”. It seems as though there are many contaminated sites out there, so if you would, comment on that one.
In the plans and priorities document, pages 37 and 48 talk about the urban aboriginal strategy. I know that friendship centres come under Heritage Canada, but I understand that the department is funding the Edmonton Aboriginal Transition Centre. I couldn't find in the estimates what source it was funded from and I wondered whether it was out of the urban aboriginal strategy. And then my question around it is: why are we funding an urban transition centre when we already have infrastructure in place for friendship centres?
My understanding concerning passports is that you have an allocation of money for secure status cards. I understood that as of June 1 there was going to be a secure status card in place that could be used to cross the border in lieu of passports. I know a number of bands have now received letters saying it won't be in place. Could you comment on that?
Here is the question I'd like you to answer verbally; the others can be dealt with in writing. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, on page 13 of the report, has indicated that it is difficult to talk about the money that's actually spent because of the fact that money is moved around. On page 7 in your plans and priorities report, under “Strategic Outcome: The Economy”, the department acknowledges that it “does not reflect in-year reallocations to address pressures in other program areas”.
So in the plans and priorities there's an acknowledgement that money gets shifted around. Part of the challenge the Parliamentary Budget Officer had was that money gets shifted around, so I wonder whether you could comment on whether the department has any intention of specifically earmarking money for schools so that it's not reallocated—not just for the capital expenditure, but for operations and maintenance as well.
:
It has been renewed. We'll get the other details, including those on the passports. I think that is on the way to being a “good news” story, but there's more work to be done.
I have to comment on Bill C-8, just very briefly again, to say that I understand the difficulty. I think everyone around the table here wants to deal with matrimonial property rights. We've spent over $8 million on consultation over several years. We've had over 100 meetings to consult. We've consulted broadly. We've had special representatives. We've had contracts with women's associations, with AFN, and others. We run the risk of there never being enough consultation. My hope is that part of the consultation will be the committee work. I realize not all of it can be that, but we have really put a good amount of money, effort, and time into trying to consult. I've had first nations approach me and say, “We have a plan in place”, and I say, “But with the stupid Indian Act the way it is, I have no power to allow you to enact your own laws on matrimonial property, so you're stuck. I like your law. I wish I could give you the permission to take it over, but I have no authority to do that.” This law, Bill C-28, would allow me to say, “Great, you have a law. Take it over. It's yours.” But I can't even do that, and that's a pretty frustrating thing for you and for me. I see a big gap, and no one can fill it because there's this lack of authority. But we'll deal with that as we move through it, I guess.
Regarding the Parliamentary Budget Officer, you're right. At first glance--and again, we'll do the analysis--he does point out that money is moved around in order to look after different priorities. I think in part it is true—and I don't know that we can put it in a lockbox. One of the difficulties we have, if you will, in Indian Affairs—people in the committee understand, but I hope people in general in the public understand—is that it's not like being just part of a school board. Indian Affairs, for better or for worse, looks after everything that touches peoples' lives in these communities. So it could be everything from fire protection, flood relief, schools, roads, infrastructure, welfare, everything. Not often, but once in a while, a crisis will happen. A school will burn down. A flood will take place. Fire will cause an evacuation, and so on. Frankly, you can have money allocated for schools, and you can build a school, but you can't provide safe drinking water for it. You can't get the road that goes to it. You have no way of making fire protection part of it. Often we have to do a holistic look at how to help the community. I think the debate can really be on how much money we spend, but often it's very difficult to pinpoint and say we'll just put this in the box, and if it's outside the box, so sad, so sorry, no one can help you. Whereas if we have some flexibility, we can use money back and forth.
I know the committee is very interested in this, and I think rightfully so. It's a very exciting part of the overall portfolio. So I would encourage you in your work, and I look forward to any advice and reports you may have, because of course you will be able to talk to more people perhaps than I might have talked to, or different people. And I'm looking forward to your perspective, because the north is an exciting area when it comes to economic opportunity.
We have announced the creation of an economic development agency for the north. We've been at work behind the scenes. This is a new development, a new agency, so it deals with the machinery of government, if you will. We've been in discussions with northern governments and aboriginal organizations on what that might look like, but obviously the creation of that stand-alone agency that will be headquartered in the north, sensitive to northerners' needs, is a key part of what we're going to be doing. This is an exciting prospect. It was the number one ask just before and after the last federal election, certainly by the business community and the governments in the north. I'm looking forward to launching that shortly. That economic development agency is going to be a key part, not only in the delivery of regular development help but also in building capacity, working with other levels of government, both aboriginal and public. It's going to be a key part because it's an ongoing relationship that will be key for northerners.
We've also announced the renewal of the SINED programming. When we had the federal-provincial ministers meeting in January, just before the budget, one of the top asks from the northern governments was the renewal of SINED.
SINED has proven to be the flagship economic development tool for the government working with northerners, and it has proven to be very effective. Twenty years ago there wasn't such a thing.
This $90 million over five years is going to be a very important part of it. And my expectation is that as the economic development agency gets up and running, they will take over the administration of that SINED money as well, and the combination is going to be a nice package of economic opportunity, local knowledge, and control of the programming. It's going to be very exciting.
We're already in the middle of making some important changes on regulatory issues in the north. I'm sure you know this. You can always get a smile from northerners when you go up and talk about regulatory reform because nowhere else in the country do they understand it as well, and understand how broken it is, as they do up north. Not by design, but by evolution, it has turned into the most hopelessly complex regulatory regime in the country and it has proven to be an impediment to economic development.
Mr. McCrank delivered a report to me last year. We've started to move on the recommendations of the report, and we'll be engaging northerners to make further changes to harmonize regulatory activity to allow environmentally sound, proper development in the north in a way that allows business to succeed.
So I think we're on the right path in the north, but again, I look forward to any reports you might develop in your northern trips and research, because I think it's an exciting area that everybody wants to get right. But we need to move quickly to allow opportunities for northerners. They're champing at the bit, and we need to help them make it happen.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We've all started with Bill C-8. I don't want to be the exception here, Mr. Minister.
Allow me to tell you that the 40th Parliament has produced a very good and I think a very well-functioning standing committee. You may want to consider that in your next move, and you may want to consider what I talked about in the House, in the debate at second reading so far. You may want to make use of a provision in the rules of the House that allows a government to refer a bill to committee before second reading, thereby giving the committee greater latitude in working with the legislation, as opposed to putting it in a straitjacket of living with the second reading approval in principle and therefore reducing considerably the latitude the committee has.
I'll leave that with you.
I want to ask some questions about a program. This is about estimates, after all. Allow me to read from an interim report from your department dated March 2009 on the food mail review. I quote:
The program’s core funding of $27.6 million has long ceased to be adequate in the face of program demand and rising costs. For eight years in a row, since 2000-01, top-up funding has been required through supplementary estimates.
In the estimates that are before us, because we're dealing with the mains, your department is asking for $27.6 million for this program, Mr. Minister. Is that enough? I know the answer is you've already asked for an additional $38 million in the supplementary estimates. Why is the department not increasing its reference level?
:
We did sign the Métis Nation protocol last September, I think it was. There was a lot of effort put into developing that by the Métis National Council. We obviously had a lot of negotiations to get to the signing of the protocol. It's something the MNC was delighted not only to sign but also to champion as a good example of improving relations between Métis governments and the federal government.
Since then, I've met with Métis leaders a number of times as well. There's a priority list of issues to be addressed in the Métis protocol, and we've been going through that list. For example, last week I met with the Métis National Council and the provincial affiliates. We were able to announce then the launching of a new service for Métis veterans, a portal or website that allows everything from the collection of important stories from Métis veterans to ensuring they get all the services they deserve, and it's done in a way that searches out additional Métis veterans. I compliment those who worked on that site, because that portal and the efforts that went into it are part and parcel of the Métis Nation protocol. The veterans are very important. The Métis are very proud of their veterans, as we all are, but they've taken a particular interest in them, and we were able to launch that.
We've also been working closely on Métis infrastructure projects. There are several projects that are in the works. We want to make sure the Métis get a good crack at some of the stimulus funds that are out there from the economic action plan.
I've also sent letters to the five premiers who are affected, urging them to consider how we may sit down in a multilateral way to deal with issues that are of concern to Métis. Some of the issues go back and forth into federal and provincial realms. In our and the Métis' opinion, there are times when a trilateral or multilateral setting is the best way to address these issues. So I've urged the provinces to do that, as have the Métis leadership. So I think we're moving forward on that.
I do want to congratulate President Chartier, and the provincial presidents as well—Presidents Chartrand, Poitras, Doucette, Dumont, and Lipinski, all of them—for just putting their shoulders to the wheel on improving relations between the federal government and the Métis in a way that's been very codified and allows us to set up regular meetings dealing with issues on a regular basis.
We are dealing with issues of core funding as well, which is another issue that was important to them, and we'll be making an announcement on that shortly.
:
The support for Indian governance and tribal council purposes comes up periodically for review, every five years. There are hundreds of millions of dollars involved in this. That is a significant amount of money, so it comes up for review, as all major programs do.
A series of meetings takes place about this with all first nations. Letters go out, talking about what is working and asking them for input on how things could be improved. We deal with the national organizations as well to talk about what, in their opinion, is working. We've had an advisory panel set up, working with first nations. That has met several times, again to advise us.
The fear is always that “review” means we're going to cut something back. But in my opinion, a review means we're going to try to make the services better. You'll find there are an awful lot of issues at stake here--everything from benefit packages for employees who work on reserve to the allocations between tribal councils and first nations governments on how much core support they need to deliver what services and what we can do to build capacity.
All those things are part of the review. Always, when there are hundreds of millions of dollars involved, my hope is that by working with aboriginal organizations and governments, we will find better, more effective ways to deliver that money. We don't just say, the way we used to do, it's the only way. In modern governance, I think you find that, as you would in any government, there are better ways going forward. We want to work with first nations and other aboriginal people to find the best ways to make sure they have the best governance possible.
:
Thank you. We're going to proceed here again in the next hour as much as we can.
Before we begin, though, members, if I can just ask for your indulgence because we're short on time today, there is one piece of business concerning our agenda for the remainder of this week and for next week. Instead of taking time during this morning's proceedings.... This is flowing out of the subcommittee meeting we had just prior to the constituency week. On May 14 we developed a draft agenda for the approval of the committee. I'm going to circulate that, and we'll treat it as a consent agenda, if that's okay with you. If there are any objections to it, perhaps you could let me know in the course of the next 40 minutes or so, and we will then take some time at the end of the meeting to discuss that issue. It will have to be a discussion in camera, so that's why I'm suggesting if there's consensus among the committee we'll just proceed. It's a printed agenda, and it will be up. If you have questions, we'll deal with them at the end, or I could also deal with you one on one at the end of the meeting. I'm just trying not to interrupt this morning's proceedings, if it's okay with you.
Now we welcome officials from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, principally, Michael Wernick, the deputy minister; Neil Yeates, the associate deputy; Jim Quinn, the CFO; and we also have with us Christine Cram, who is the assistant deputy minister under the rubric of education, social development, and partnership. Also, we welcome back Patrick Borbey, who is the assistant deputy concerning issues of northern affairs in particular.
Members, we're going to continue with the five-minute rounds, where we left off, more or less, and we'll get in as many questions as we can in the coming minutes. We're going to start off with Mr. Rickford for five minutes.
:
Thank you for the question, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to come here.
I'll put in a little plug. This is the twenty-third appearance by my department's officials before a parliamentary committee since Parliament resumed in January. We're happy to have this ongoing engagement with parliamentarians to make the department a better place, and I think we'll be back on Thursday to pursue some further issues, unless you've changed your schedule.
Taking Mr. Rickford's question, I do want to get on the record one very clear distinction, that the Indian government support programs, which were the subject of earlier questions, are the basic funding support for band governments, their employees, and tribal councils. That has nothing to do with elections and leadership selection. Some media reports have squished the two together.
We're reviewing the Indian government support programs because they sunset. Knowing they would sunset in March 2010, we've started the process of consultation and engagement with people. It has made people nervous. They are worried about what will happen to the programs, and I think the minister answered those questions. We have taken no decisions and taken nothing to cabinet on the future of the Indian government support programs. We obviously would not do that until we'd gone much deeper into a consultation and engagement with the people affected.
On the leadership selection issues, we have no plans or intentions to pursue leadership selection aggressively over the next little while. It would take legislation, and one of the most difficult and controversial issues this committee would ever deal with would be Indian band elections. What we're trying to do is open a dialogue wherever possible, because people are coming to us and saying the status quo doesn't really work very well. There are communities like Barrier Lake, where there's a dispute about who's in charge, and there are a couple of communities in Manitoba and so on. So we're basically working with those who are willing to talk to us and engage in research and outreach.
The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs pursued this very vigorously last year. The Atlantic Policy Congress pursued this and have a different take on it. For some people, the priority is a longer term of office, so that you're not running for election every two years, although members of this committee are perhaps used to that. First nations community leaders would like to have a three-year or four-year cycle and be able to push through reforms. For other people, it's having appeals and mechanisms and a kind of elections commission, instead of running to the minister as the sort of appeal body, and there are some interesting ideas about having an elections commission for first nations elections. What do you do to resolve disputes, particularly when communities are using custom code elections, which are not particularly transparent to their members in some cases?
We don't intend to pursue that until there's a willingness and a readiness in first nations communities to take that on. If there's support, people who will come and support a particular initiative, our advice would be to take whatever reforms are available--don't go for some big bang kind of election reform legislation--but we're not ruling anything out.
If I can talk about the other place very briefly, the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples is seized with this very issue and is having hearings on this subject and probably will be giving us advice.
:
Very quickly, SchoolNet was extended for two years.
On OFI, it's additional money that was extended for the Métis rights initiative, which is basically dealing with the consequences of the Powley decision. We have work going on in communities, identifying registries and that sort of thing. It was just an extension of that Powley initiative.
The 2% is one of the areas where I think we have to get back to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Just because he didn't find the right document doesn't mean there isn't a 2% cap. In fact, it's quite transparent in the estimates this year. Every year we go through a fall update of our reference levels. They're reflected in the main estimates the following year. Page I-12, the $93 million, if memory serves, is precisely the 2% adjustment to a bundle of services to first nations. The bundle is all our core social programs that Christine is responsible for: education, income assistance, social services, child protection, housing, and community infrastructure. That envelope is allocated a 2% growth factor, plus whatever special funding comes around, as there was in Budget 2005, Budget 2008, and Budget 2009.
:
Thank you, Mr. Lévesque.
Earlier, I talked about the reconciliation commission. Related to that are two significant support programs. The first is called
[English]
the common experience payment.
[Translation]
It is a payment to each individual who attended a residential school.
[English]
I can get you more recent data. What I have now is that we're very well advanced. About 98,000 applications came in for CEP. We've processed almost 94,000 of them. Some people are not eligible, and most are. We've dealt with over 73,000 payments. Over $1.5 billion has gone out under the common experience payment. We've given people the benefit of the doubt when documentation was incomplete and paid out for what we could demonstrate. So we still have about 10,000 cases in reconsideration, trying to fill in the gaps and deal with any issues. There is an appeal process for people who are not happy with those outcomes. So we're very well advanced on the common experience payment.
The other process that's available is for people who have claims of serious physical or sexual abuse. This is an independent assessment process. There's a set of adjudicators who deal with those and make payments. We're well into that and reporting to the courts on their implementation. My numbers are that about 7,000 claims have come in, and there were about 2,000 that carried over from before the settlement agreement. We've resolved over 2,000 of them. About 1,000 are in the process right now. Over the next three or four years we hope to deal with all of those. We can't be absolutely sure how many claims will come forward, because people still have some time to bring claims forward.