[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 16, 1996
.1109 
[English]
The Chairman: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. A special welcome to our minister, Mr. Irwin, and members of the department.
We're here today in response to a request by the members of this committee, particularly from the opposition, who wanted access to the minister to ask for explanations.
We ask that you share with us the direction in which you, as minister, and your department wish to go.
We didn't come here to listen to me. You have officials with you. I have a list two pages long of ladies and gentlemen who are with us and who have been with us before. We are getting to know them better.
You're all welcome.
Mr. Minister, I understand you have a videotaped presentation. The floor is yours.
After this we will open it up to questions, and hopefully we will finish by 12:30. If you need more time, we're available until 1 p.m.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you,Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
.1110
First I want to thank you for the excellent work this committee has been doing. I take a certain amount of pride in hearing from the whip's office that this committee has probably one of the best relationships going with DIAND officials and the ministry. Having gone through the committee stage as a backbencher, I know how frustrating it is. When I hear those kinds of comments I'm pleased with your relationship, with the quality of the work you're putting out and with our own officials, both political and bureaucratic.
I'm here really to make comments. I'm here to give an overview of the direction I see us going in and to receive your input, not necessarily today but in the long run, as to how we can do it better. You've already had the deputy minister and the ADMs, who dealt with things like self-government, land claims and conditions on reserves in the north. I won't go over that again. I want to deal with the future and concentrate on economic development.
In Canada there are 608 reserves, as you all know, with approximately 300,000 status Indians living on reserve and 400,000 living off reserve. The non-status Indians, who still have aboriginal treaty rights, are about the same number - 700,000 or 800,000 living off reserve, Métis, and about 40,000 Inuit in the north.
I don't think this country can succeed unless the aboriginal people succeed with us. How can we say we're a success if that success is not shared by 1.5 million aboriginal people?
There cannot be self-government without self-sufficiency. There can't be. And there can't be self-sufficiency if we continue with the same type of social assistance budget. We will continue with that budget unless we break it down and get into true economic development and jobs - real jobs, not make-work - that create capital and create profit and create pride.
I want to show you a fairly recent video we had put together. What I wanted was basically the truth, things that you and I see on reserves, some of the failures, especially in housing, some of the successes, and where we can go with economic development. We've only taken six across the country. We could have taken hundreds. This will give you an idea of what's happening out there and where we have to work collectively to enhance these types of partnerships with aboriginal people.
[Video Presentation]
.1121
Mr. Irwin: We have the video in French and English. If I'm not mistaken they're both on the same video. It's French and it's repeated in English. If any member of the committee would like a copy, we'll make it available. Ask any of the staff, probably Paul McInstry.
It's a good tool. When I'm talking to bankers or real estate agents or chiefs, starting with this saves a lot of explanation. A lot of first nations don't know what's happening in other parts of the country. A lot of non-natives don't know what's happening with the first nations. So it's a good tool to get going.
This economic development is not going to happen overnight. We have to work with financing, training and skills, joint ventures, markets. It's a horrendous challenge, but I think it's something we can't even debate any longer. The debate over whether we do it or don't do it is long past. It has to be done, so we have to get on with it.
To me it's a non-partisan issue. We may disagree with the Bloc or Reform or NDP on certain specifics about constitutional change or inherent right, but generally we all want this to happen in all parts of the country.
I will give you about half a dozen examples of where it is happening. Westbank First Nation in Vancouver, B.C., in that area, is into leasing properties, shopping malls. They have major banks and retail stores. Kamloops First Nation has an industrial park. They're doing this with longer-term leases, because you know the difficulty getting financing on reserves. In Manitoba, Buffalo Point is into cottage leasing. In Ontario there are many similar things along those lines. In Burrard Inlet they're doing beautiful condos. It's Chief George, whose father was the actor Dan George. They finished the first phase, done by them and operated by them, and they're into several more phases. Eel Ground in New Brunswick is into prefabricated homes. Lac La Ronge in Saskatchewan is into a co-venture with a Toronto builder, Italian-Canadian. That says something good about the Italians.
In Saskatchewan the Toronto Dominion Bank and Blaine Favel are co-venturing the first aboriginal bank. I keep saying it's six weeks away. I hope that gets through the banking officials soon because we've been waiting for it. Because it's the first one, we'd like to have a fairly significant kick-off somewhere in the financial district of Toronto as well as in Saskatchewan. It's a co-venture, but within a space of ten years it will be totally owned by the first nations of Saskatchewan.
The one I always point out is right in my own backyard, Sault Ste. Marie, Batchewana First Nation. They do motors for diesel engines, pre-heating motors. They sell to part of National Defence and they sell successfully into the U.S. They've been very profitable for about the last five years.
.1125
We're trying to do some innovative things. For instance, in the next few weeks there will be a meeting of Montreal business people and the Kahnawake Mohawks in Kahnawake territory to look at procurement policies.
We just signed land management agreements with 13 first nations a month ago. That's been in the works for a while and we finally got them signed. It's basically to get out from under the Indian Act. They take responsibility for management and they can move quickly.
The difficulty with the business side is that if they can get the capital and the idea and the business together, they can't wait for two or three years to get through this process. I was there as a lawyer. It's a very convoluted process to get the permissions. When they put all this effort into the idea and the product and the right people, then they have to be in a position to move quickly.
Under the land management agreements they will have greater access to capital; it will be easier to get capital. As I said, we signed off 13 and I'm hoping there will be more. There are 13 good ones there.
We are trying to get claims settled more expeditiously within the budgets. We settled 61 in the last two years. You all know about the Price Waterhouse report in British Columbia. Because of legal uncertainty in British Columbia, they lose $125 million per year in investment, domestic investment, offshore investment. I hear a lot of complaints about that loss from people in the business community, the facilitators and the brokers.
There are some other areas where I see some promise, significant promise if it's done right. There is the diamond mining in the Northwest Territories, the Voisey nickel. The Inuit, the Métis and four first nations are expressing interest in that, saying they have certain rights in that. They're all being treated seriously.
There is tourism. All over Canada I see some great tourist areas we can bring people to, but we have to have proper marketing and training and make sure it's a class destination. Tourists are getting spoiled. For their dollar they want quality. We have to do all those things to make sure we can work with aboriginal people in the training component and in the capital component so there can be more tourism.
On procurement, as of April 1 we announced a procurement policy. Very simply put, if an aboriginal company is 51% owned by aboriginal people and has a minimum of six employees, two of whom must be aboriginal, so about one-third, then they have access to a wide band of all government contracts, a certain band. You know the difficulty I'm having getting that concept over, not only to the aboriginal people but to our own caucus, because it's something new. I'm asked questions in our own caucus. Does this mean insurance? Why not? We buy insurance. Why can't an aboriginal company start an insurance company? Does this mean food that we buy? Why not?
I met with the Crees, very good businessmen, and laid it out with them and what could be done with them. We're looking at certain areas where we can probably do a better job - for instance, Six Nations in southern Ontario; Tsuu T'Ina in Alberta; the Kahnawake and the Montreal businessmen, bringing them together; the FSIN in Saskatchewan. We went into certain areas where they're more advanced in business, and I think they have to lead the way.
At the same time we have to change our thinking in all our ministries. We really do, because it's a new thing in the ministries. I see this as a plus-plus. I don't think they can be in procurement forever, but this helps them, especially the smaller companies, to get into the market and get the training. Then if they want to go national or international, that's their business. These are the types of partnerships they were looking for.
We had an aboriginal financial symposium in Fredericton for four days last year. The first two days were pretty ragged. We had banks with large packages of capital and aboriginal businessmen with large packages of capital, and they really didn't understand each other for the first couple of days. Then they got into the business of business and the last two days of the meeting were fantastic. It's still together. They're still reporting.
From meetings like this you'll see, for instance on the Eagle Forest Products, you'll see the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in there supporting the New Brunswick venture, or the Toronto Dominion or the Bank of Montreal. in one of the Mohawk communities. Because of these meetings they're getting to know each other and getting to know that this could be profitable, as well as doing something substantial for the country.
.1130
On education, in 1981 only 20% of aboriginal people got to grade 12, but in 1994 about 80% were in grade 12. I've used the figure over and over again, but just because I repeat it doesn't mean it's not significant. In 1968 there were only 600 to 800 aboriginal people in colleges and universities, and today we have 150,000 aboriginal graduates in Canada. They need more specialized skills, but Canadians as a whole need more specialized skills. We live in a global economy. They need more certifications. These are the things that will take us as a country - not just the aboriginal people - into the next century.
That's why, Mr. Chairman, I'm looking forward to your education report. We started with the premise that there's the package of money, a little over $1 billion. So how do we spend it better? How do we get those skills? How do we reach the kids to keep them in sciences, in specific skills? You have quite a few educators on the.... I'm looking at at least two who have been in education and know that it's necessary.
I hate talking about what was done yesterday, but we have to periodically remind ourselves that in post-secondary we had $269 million, and we've increased that fund by $56 million since 1993. So there's been an increase of 26% on education just since 1993. It's difficult when all the budgets are being cut, but education has to be a priority.
This summer we'll be hiring on three specific youth employment contracts - around 2,000 in the normal youth employment contract that you see, 1,600 in science and technology summer camps, and about 2,500 aboriginal people in the co-op program. There are many reasons for that. First is training, but then there are match-ups. If employers see what aboriginal people can do, they have a better chance of getting hired. It's a better chance of having co-ventures.
Some companies are doing these things without the government prompting them. I would specifically point out Syncrude and Cominco. They're just good companies. They have this philosophy about partnerships and working with aboriginal people.
In the housing demonstration field, there's a tremendous need for housing. You saw some of it on the video. We're trying to come up with housing that is better and cheaper, and has skills, local training and local material. That envisions all kinds of match-ups, all types of different housing, and all kinds of different people. This was a new program that came in. Last year we spent $10 million and did 35 proposals. This year we are looking at around 63 proposals. Not all of them will come through, but they have 63 serious proposals on the table.
We have to get past the stage where we're judges. As the Prime Minister said, we have to stop being their judges. We're good at being judges, but we have to be their partners. We have a chance to do something the whole world will look at. You start with the aboriginal people. They've been here from 5,000 to 10,000 years and speak 50 different languages. Then the French and English came here. On top of that you have the Italians and the Irish. You have the aboriginal cultures, the biculturals and the multiculturals in this country. In many ways, the world is looking at us.
There are approximately 2,000 ``nations'' on this planet, but in the UN there are less than 200. How we work together to keep Canada together - and I'm not talking about unity or separation, I'm talking about what we have here. We have the wonder of the world. Even if Quebec separated, we're still living together and we still have 600,000 francophones in Ontario. These things happen. They're there. So the world is looking at us to see how we can live better together. It's a tremendous challenge, but in the meantime we can be the showcase for the world.
.1135
Speaking of showcases, I will need your help on this. June 21 is aboriginal recognition day and I would like each MP to do something. We're having posters delivered. The Speaker of the House will recognize the thirteen national achievement award winners this year and will have a small reception to which all MPs are invited. I hope all of them will come out. It will be over about a ten-day period. The Governor General will sign the proclamation and we'll try to get the proclamations done up. If you want to have a small event in your community, there can be a presentation of the proclamation.
The Senate, under Senator Poulin, is looking at some way that it can recognize aboriginal people on an annual basis. MPs, school trustees and provincial legislators across the country are going to try to do something. It's not going to be big, because I have restrictions on budgets, but we have to start somewhere. The summer solstice is the date the AFN want it, the date that came out of Mr. Harper's sacred assembly, and the date that's been endorsed by the government. I think it's endorsed by all parties.
Let's kick off the next century on June 21. With all the problems we have in this country, collectively we can do tremendous things.
I'm prepared to answer questions. I don't know if I'll do it effectively or efficiently, but I'm prepared to give it my best try.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and thank you for bringing the video. We would request that each member of this committee be provided with a copy in English and one in French.
Before I open it to questions, Mr. Minister, I'd like to share with you a concern that seems to regularly come back to this committee. Perhaps it would be best brought up by the opposition, but it's something that is troubling this committee. I'd like to ask you to respond and tell us if there's anything we as a committee can do to assist.
When we address reports or studies, we're often faced with the problem of.... We all know that economic development is built on partnerships. I'll be as direct as I usually am - sometimes we ask ourselves what partnerships exist between departments. When we do studies we are often stopped in our tracks and say this is Health, this is Industry Canada, this is Human Resources Development and this is DIAND. If we as a committee are to study economic development and bring forth opportunities to create wealth, we have to find a way to bring these together. Otherwise, what can we do to assist?
I bring this forward as a concern of the committee, because we're constantly faced with it. If you can provide input for us, if there's anything we can do to make this happen.... If there's no reason for us to be concerned about it, we'd like to have some feedback on it. If you wish to do it later, that's up to you.
Mr. Irwin: Do you want me to answer this first?
The Chairman: If you wish.
Mr. Irwin: I think this is a continuing concern of government. When I was a backbencher in 1980-1984, the Japanese would come in here with delegations. I don't know if they're doing this any more. They would go to up to ten ministries with the same questions and would then go back and compare their answers. They would have a better idea about our national policy than we did, because ministries have day-to-day problems and don't talk to each other. That's a problem in democracy and bureaucracy that we have to address almost daily.
The other thing is that with the lay-offs, we have more vertical lines in our ministries where the information is this way. As George Da Pont says, we have to flatten this out so that there's more horizontal sharing. At my own ministry it has to be flattened out among the ministers. That's going to be a continuing problem as long as we have bureaucracies and democracies. It's not just something that's here today and gone tomorrow.
The biggest way to do it is how I do it - constant complaining.
The Chairman: Members of the committee, if you find a way to present it as a project for this committee to be studied and make recommendations, I think that would be a good tool for us to embark on economic development. So much for that.
Monsieur Bachand.
.1140
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): I know what the political current is here. Had I been Minister of Indian Affairs, I would have given the same presentation as you; I would have mentioned the government's accomplishments, so that the progress be visible.
However, as my current is that of the Official Opposition, I must draw your attention to things that aren't quite working properly and that need amending. There are three specific things I would like to dwell on. It has been recognized that self-government must precede economic development. As long as aboriginals don't have full authority and haven't taken their future into their own hands, their economic development will be difficult.
You issued a policy on the government economy, which was given a poor reception by aboriginals. Chief Ovide Mercredi apparently stated that it was paternalistic and degrading, and Phil Fontaine said that is was doomed to failure.
I'd like you to tell us how you deal with your policy and with the negative reactions of the First Nations' representatives. There is an obvious instance of this in the context of the inherent right to self-government.
You wanted Manitoba to be a spearhead, by dismantling the Indian Affairs Department in Manitoba. According to my information, there was disagreement from the first meeting, and there haven't been any other negotiations, unless they were informal. There's a problem with considering self-government in Manitoba. It may be an example of the fact that your policy may not be quite adapted to the situation and that it was developed without consultation. That's the first thing I would like to hear you address.
As to economic development, you've always been very harsh towards Quebec concerning its relations with aboriginals. I've always maintained that Quebec was a leader in economic development and social and cultural development, as well as in its relations with aboriginals. Moreover, somebody you know very well supports us in this regard: Mr. Brad Morse said that Quebec was a leader in economic development.
You come to Quebec and criticize our relations with aboriginals. Are you saying thatMr. Morse, one of your assistants, is also wrong? I'd like to know your viewpoint concerningMr. Morse's opinion and see how you perceive Quebeckers' relations with the aboriginal nations of Quebec.
You spoke very briefly about national unity. I've often heard you say that aboriginal economic development was in a way tied to national unity. I also heard you say before that, even if Quebec separates, we will have to work together. Partnership is my philosophy, and I talked about it this week to Mr. Mercredi, who even confirmed that there were many similarities between Quebec nationalism and aboriginal nationalism. They are two cultures, two nations that want to take charge of themselves. He said this to us clearly this week.
Mr. Sinclair went further. Mr. Sinclair stated last week:
[English]
- Now if this is the kind of fairness that Canada stands for...I'm going to have to really look at the
next time Quebec has a referendum. If that's the way we're treated inside our own country, then
we'd better look at other people and their legitimate complaints about a system that's keeping
them from exercising their rights.
I'd like to hear what you have to say concerning the possibility of separation. Wouldn't it be in the interest of Canadian aboriginals and Quebec aboriginals to continue to work together? Quebec and Canada would have to continue to work together to come to a more open form of economic development.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are the three questions I would like the minister to answer.
The Chairman: Mr. Minister, before asking you to react, I'll state that the point of this exercise is to help the committee in its works.
.1145
My colleague from the Bloc québécois has chosen to ask questions on a subject which is beyond the purview of this committee, but we're a very open committee. I'll allow the MP to ask his question. It's up to you to decide whether you want to answer it.
[English]
Mr. Irwin: First, on the inherent right of self-government, there were about 100 editorials across the country, all favourable. Mr. Mercredi has his job. He's consistent. He even criticized the sacred assembly. He just can't help criticizing. But generally it's working across there - difficult, but it's working.
We never get much comment in London, but even The Economist in London looked at our policy. In fact, our policy is the most advanced in the world. We're saying that certain rights come from the Creator. There's no country in the world that has said that. Education, health, governance, marriage, policing, culture, language - from the Creator to the first peoples. There's not a country in the world that has said that. It's the most advanced policy in the world. I think that's becoming accepted.
As for Manitoba, I would trust my house and my children to Phil Fontaine. We're working together. We've met in the last week. It's difficult to table. Self-government is not easy, but it's moving. The Manitoba dismantling was mentioned at Harvard University as one of the most progressive aboriginal policies in the world. We're very proud of that.
With Quebec specifically, there are a lot of problems in getting to economic development. For instance, the Algonquins just north of here are forest people. They don't have one nickel of equity in forest companies, not one nickel. These are French-speaking aboriginal people. Nothing - there's no equity in the very forest they own and live in.
The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, 1975...I'm up there looking at buildings. We built a lot of buildings there. I didn't know until a couple of months ago that under that agreement, the houses could not be built by the Inuit unless they were part of Quebec unions, and they've never been allowed in. It would not be tolerated anywhere in this country to be in a community doing economic development and skill development and the community does not do the building. That was a great agreement in 1975, but in 1996 it sucks.
On unity, I asked a question of the member's leader the first time I had a chance. We were talking about unity and its ties into economic development. I said there are 10 first nations,40 communities, plus the Inuit in Quebec, the Attikamekw, the Montagnais - you know them all. They've been there 10,000 years on top of that, and they say they want to be part of Canada. In Montreal alone, 450,000 Italian-Canadians who are Canadians living in Quebec want to be part of Canada. Of the 30 ridings, 23 voted no. The Pontiac townships say they want their Canadian passport. Hull says it wants its Canadian passport. The Eastern Townships say they want their Canadian passport, as well as those south of the 1898 line, like the Algonquin, the Huron in Quebec City, the Mohawks, the Montagnais.
I asked the hon. member's leader, if you believe in democracy, why aren't you listening to your adviser, Daniel Turp, who says that the rights of the aboriginal people in Quebec are superior to those of the Québécois? His answer was that if the majority, 50 plus 1, say that they have to go, they're going.
If you match that with what it does to the economy, you saw what happened in the referendum. Each point on the international market, for which I blame the Bloc, cost us $1.7 billion in borrowing. That's a direct result of the Bloc's policy. We're up two points, $3.4 billion per year. Unity and disunity contribute to a great extent to economic development, so we have to get together. We have to realize these things and face them head on. If we keep talking about separation, we all suffer in Canada.
The Chairman: Ms Bridgman.
Ms Bridgman (Surrey North): My questions are specific to economics. That's what we indicated in the letter.
.1150
I'd also like to echo some of the chairman's comments about the other departments in here. I was looking through a book they got from the department - this one - and it shows the pie. It indicated that total aboriginal spending, which didn't include studies but included the programs, was approximately $6.4 billion. The aboriginal budget itself was $4.1 billion. That left $2.3 billion for the other departments. This is a concern we have when we look at the possible programs going through the one ministry. How are these going to correlate or intertwine with other ministries? A lot of dollars are included there.
Further, the book indicates that there's going to be a cut in programs. Of course, we wonder if the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is cutting and if some of these other areas are cutting too. How is that going to relate to economic development?
I would like some dialogue on the concept of self-sufficiency. That's an absolute we have to work towards. Also, I would like some expansion upon north and south. Your video was predominantly on the southern area. Reference was made to the north, but it was in relation to natural resources like nickel and diamond. Getting that sorted out is going to put us into provincial jurisdictions as well.
I would like some comments on another thing. There are a few federal studies or strategies or programs or commissions, or whatever other name, already in place. One would be the Canadian aboriginal economic development strategy. I believe that started in 1989 with a five-year mandate. I don't know if it's still going because that mandate would have run out in 1994 or 1995. I believe that one was specifically designed to study economic disparities between the aboriginal situation and the rest of Canadians. It also involved three ministries: Human Resources Development, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Industry. I'd like to know where that one is.
I just mentioned the Canadian aboriginal economic development strategy, and there's reference in the estimates to a first nation and Inuit community economic development program. I don't quite know what the difference is. I'm not quite sure what that is. It's my understanding that it employs 900-odd people and that it's taking inquiries or something. I don't know how that relates to the other.
Then you get into things like the Canadian Polar Commission, which is scientific research. How does that relate to economic development?
What are some things the government is doing through these studies and strategies that are in place now that are leading towards economic development? The video tended to single out individual companies and what have you.
There is another aspect I would like some feedback on. It's my understanding that your administration pursued or reviewed or revisited the northern food basket type of program. Could you let us know where that's at?
To backtrack, what's in the makings now in here? What is the difference between north and south? There is a definite geographic difference. How are these other departments with their budget cuts going to affect the programs they participate in with this department? Take the northern cuts, for example. It's indicated that there will be a 3.5% cut there, which can address such things as research, education and what have you. It's my understanding that education has a priority there. Where are we heading with some of these economic programs that are already in place?
.1155
Mr. Irwin: I can give you some broad strokes. I think you're more interested in that.
My budget was approximately $5 billion last year, and approximately $1 billion was taken off for north of 60. So Yukon, GNWT and the new Nunavut after April 1, 1999 will have direct negotiations, finance minister to finance minister. So that's over in Finance.
HRD - that 3% or $213 million over the last year.... Starting with Mr. Axworthy and now with Mr. Young, the revolving jurisdiction and the programs over to aboriginal people across the country.... It is not easy, especially with some of them. It's taken a year and they're trying to do it in as sensitive a way as possible. That would be Mrs. Blondin-Andrew, and Bob Nault is helping out under Mr. Young and the interlocutor, Anne McLellan.
The other big component is the health budget. It's significant. Mr. Dingwall, who has always taken an interest in aboriginal people, is now going to go out to aboriginal communities, starting in northern Ontario. I think he's going to northern Manitoba, which is good, so that we can come together.
When I'm in the community they ask me health questions, but I'm not the Minister of Health. When I tell an aboriginal person that I'm not the Minister of Health, they say you're the Minister of Indian Affairs, why aren't you doing health? So this is going to be happening this summer. We'll go at it together and then these questions can be asked.
There will be some cuts in programs. Even though there was an increase in the budget, it's a matter of prioritizing. A 2% increase, because of the birth rate, is doubled. The baby boom did not take place in aboriginal communities when it took place in the white communities, so there are some things that we're trying to hold tough on, specifically education. We're trying to do a better job with the housing and certain things, but there are some cuts that we'll have to make because of the increase in population.
Many of the funds we distribute are tied in with provincial legislation. They mirror provincial legislation. The social assistance budget is identical. The payments are identical. Whatever the provinces do.... So there are certain things that I'm hamstrung by. I have to go with what the provinces are paying out.
On the northern cuts, you gave a percentage, but is that the $15 million they were talking about last year? In the budget they talked about $15 million.
Ms Bridgman: Somewhere I read that northern programs will be cut by 3.5% in 1998-99.
Mr. Irwin: This will be offset because of the Nunavut package. I think $15 million was cut off. A new territory is being developed over the next four years, with $150 million allocated to it. People tend to forget that. They look at the $15 million that was cut, but it's a package to me. There's an extra $150 million going specifically for the Nunavut area, so there's an increase there if you take the Nunavut package and apply it.
On the north-south economic development, I have the same problems that every community has. If you're living in northern Manitoba, there are certain things that you're going to be doing. You're not going to be in manufacturing; you're going to be in forestry and the fishery. If you're north of 60, you're into some mining. If you're at Six Nations, where they have 243 companies, they're part of a community. They have no defaults in housing.
By the way, our defaults on mortgages are only 0.5%. Better get some good news out there.
In Six Nations they can get into things like manufacturing, and in the gas and oil patch they want to do gas and oil.
There's going to be a difference, just as there is in the whole country. People in the non-native....
We are trying to work out co-management. It's going well in Alberta. Premier Klein has a way in which he wants to operate. He's invited us into co-management with Treaty No. 8 in the north, and we've invited him into scoping out Treaty Nos. 6 and 7 in the south. It had a rocky start in Saskatchewan, but it's starting to move again.
Not much is happening in Ontario. It's not a political thing, because both Mr. Harris andMr. Klein are Conservatives, but they have a different way of moving.
.1200
So it's moving well in Alberta, but not so well in Ontario. That means looking at the forestry sector and the subsurface sector and trying to work with aboriginal people. So there are some funds coming out of that, some training, some sustainable yield and some regulation that they are involved in. They are not just told this is the way it's going to go.
On the various studies and the northern food question, I'll ask Mr. Serson to respond to those. I think I answered everything except -
Ms Bridgman: What about the aboriginal economic development strategy? Is that still going?
Mr. Scott Serson (Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): That is still going, but the programs are changing.
Human Resources Development is a partner in that program. They are currently negotiating with aboriginal groups to devolve the Pathways program to aboriginal groups. We're looking within our department to see how we can, as the chairman said, bring our economic development programs together to greater effect, and we are in consultation with Industry Canada, which is another major partner in economic development, to see how we can work more closely together. But those funds are still there.
On the food mail question, the minister has already announced that the food mail program will continue but will be capped at $15.6 million per year. We're in the process of consulting our stakeholders on possible program refinements, and we hope to have the minister announce those fairly shortly. We're also talking to provincial and territorial governments about becoming partners in the program and contributing financially to it.
The Chairman: Before we go on, I'd like to commend Ms Bridgman for bringing this up - the different departments that are involved in the development of communities. I encourage you to continue. You might even address our colleagues on this committee to invite Industry Canada and Human Resources Development to come and complete the picture. I want to thank you for that.
Mr. Irwin: Ms Bridgman was deeply involved in Health before she came to this life.
Are you having Mr. Dingwall here?
The Chairman: We hadn't considered it, but because of Ms Bridgman -
Mr. Irwin: That may be a good idea.
The Chairman: - that may be something that should be recommended. And Industry Canada, I suppose.
Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak (Nunatsiaq): Thank you.
I have a couple of questions, but before I do that, we have Nunavut coming up on April 1, 1999. In the hypothetical situation of Quebec separating from Canada, Nunavut will be ready and willing to take over Nunavik. That is a hypothetical situation, I think, but the people of Nunavik have already determined that they want to be part of Canada.
On the Nunavut issue, will the minister reiterate his support for April 1, 1999 as the start-up date for the territory of Nunavut?
On another issue, one issue the Liberal Party campaigned on was doing away with the surrender clause. Where is that issue? A group in British Columbia is being asked to surrender - this was in June 1994. Things may have changed since then, but where is that issue at in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs?
Mr. Irwin: On the April 1, 1999 date, there was a lot of serious discussion about deferring that for a whole series of reasons.
.1205
For many reasons it wasn't done, because if you set the date further off, it will just take longer to do. So Mr. Anawak and I were at two horrendous meetings in the last few months, one of which was in Rankin Inlet. Mr. Finlay was there.
The Chairman: I was there.
Mr. Irwin: We just sat down and did 25 items, including the capital, the referendum, the interim commissioner, and a few of the other things.
Then last week we were at Arviat, Ralph's Bed & Breakfast. Basically, the federal side just sat back and listened.
It's moving right along. There are more arguments. It's sounding like Question Period, so democracy is maturing in Nunavut. I can't see them not hitting the April 1, 1999 date.
On extinguishment, as a result of the motion, which I think was put forward by Mr. Harper, Judge Hamilton prepared a very sophisticated and difficult report. So we had that one and the royal commission report.
As a matter of fact, we met yesterday on this issue, and there have been meetings with Judge Hamilton over the last three or four weeks to try to come out with at least a federal discussion document on this to get some people together, some thinkers, some negotiators, and try to work this through.
At the same time, the Nisga'a deal came very close to defining some extinguishment clauses. In the end, because of time limitations, we had to get that deal closed. We did that. We left there with the various negotiators having to negotiate extinguishment clauses that were acceptable to the Province of British Columbia, the federal government, and the Nisga'a people.
I see these things going on concurrently, with the Nisga'a working on theirs while we're working on our policy. I don't know which will come out first, but I don't think we should stop one for the other. I don't think we should stop the Nisga'a negotiating and drafting while waiting for a federal policy nor hold up the federal policy while waiting for the Nisga'a. I think they can go concurrently. Hopefully, at the end, something good will come out of it.
It's much more difficult than just putting words on paper, because extinguishment in many things is a very deep grievance that goes back a hundred years. We signed a number of treaties. We signed all of these treaties, and the aboriginal people gave away tremendous things. There's a lot of distrust, and rightly so.
There's a lot of drafting. I'm hoping that the Nisga'a drafting comes out slightly ahead of the policy so that people can see that we can sit honourably and do these agreements that will have a lasting and fair effect.
The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Minister, we've heard a lot recently about dismantling the Indian Act and so on. I wonder if you could give some general answer as to whether there is any sort of time line in your crystal ball, or our crystal ball, with respect to that. Obviously, your budget last year was one of the only budgets that increased by 3%. The explanation was that the birth rate in aboriginal communities is up. It's at least double the Canadian average; therefore, more services are required.
As we move to more and more first nations agreements and things like Nunavut in the Northwest Territories and your economic development plans, I presume that the generation of wealth, as you said, is required for respect, prosperity, self-reliance and community services. After 20, 30 or 50 years down the road, is there no further need for DIAND?
.1210
I have a second question that's much more specific with respect to the problem of the fishery in B.C. This goes back to something Ms Bridgman said about departments working together. Does your department have any effect on the decision?
We met a week ago with aboriginal people form British Columbia who were very upset about the plan because it seems to be going to allow those with the most money to buy the most licences or to buy other people's licences. The value of these licences has jumped about 500% in the last month or so.
What pressure can we bring to bear on DFO to say that there's something more than fishing in an economic measurement or concern here? The coastal aboriginal people were granted reserves after the 1871 treaty. The person who decided on those is quoted at the time as saying that since they get their food source from the sea, they don't need much land.
Consequently, we have the problems of Weyerhaeuser and MacMillan Bloedel cutting down all the trees and polluting the salmon streams. The native people see their livelihood just disappearing. I'd like your comments on that.
Mr. Irwin: First, on the Indian Act, I wanted to clean it up without spending a lot of time and money in highlighting it to such a height that the public would think that's all we want to do. We're doing a lot in round tables on the inherent right and the B.C. treaty process.
About a year ago, we sent out letters to all the chiefs. We sent 608 letters saying that if you have grievances about this act, let us know.
Those answers came in. We took those answers and sent them out to the chiefs again. Some of the chiefs saw things they hadn't thought about. They had changes they wanted.
They came back a third time. It will come back.
This fall, I will be putting forward the changes they are asking for before this committee as legislation in the House. We'll come to this committee. I'm not saying this is all we're going to do, but that's where I really need the committee.
At least we have a base. You won't spend the next ten years just discussing the problem. You'll have a base of what a lot of the chiefs are saying. You'll have all that background and information. Then you can have your hearings and you can build on that, or reduce it, if you want.
What comes out of this committee is pretty well what we're going to bring into the House. I think it's a good, cheap, effective consensual way of cleaning up a lot of the Indian Act amendments. I forgot to mention that, but it's important.
As for there being no need for DIAND, there will probably always be some group for negotiating. I don't know if it will be Finance or Justice, but it might be over there somewhere. At one point, DIAND was at 7,000 employees. It was 3,700 when I went in. It was reduced to 3,300. It will be 3,000 or less probably in two or three years. So it's slowly going down.
As for the fishery....
Please introduce yourself and what you do, then answer that question.
Mike Furey (Senior Negotiator, Nisga'a Negotiating Team, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs): My name is Mike Furey. I'm one of the federal negotiators on the Nisga'a treaty in B.C.
In response to your question relating to the DFO fleet rationalization exercise on the commercial fishery in B.C., I know the commercial fishermen, including the first nations commercial fishermen, have been involved in that process. A lot of consultation went on until now.
Through the treaty process we are engaged in, as a result of the arrangements we will eventually reach with first nations, there will be more involvement by first nations in fisheries management, such as cooperative arrangements relating to fisheries management on watersheds. This will also include economic benefits for the first nations people.
.1215
Mr. Finlay: That's pretty general. My concern is that the value of these licences, which DFO is giving up, gets well beyond the range of the individual fishermen or the small first nations to make it economically viable. Yet, it's a source they have.
I hear you say there will be more co-management and so on, but how are we going to get around who owns it? How are we going to compensate them if we don't do something now to prevent the thing from getting out of hand? The minister's talking about $350,000 per licence.
Mr. Serson: I think all we can do from DIAND's point of view is give you the general answer that we work very closely with the Department of Fisheries. We do joint development of our negotiating mandate in the treaty process when it comes to the question of fisheries. We've had lots of support from them on the Nisga'a negotiations.
They are faced with a difficult problem on the west coast, but they keep us informed. Where we feel we have to influence them, we do so. But generally, it is their issue to deal with. We try to represent, within that process of discussion, the views of first nations.
The Chairman: Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper (Churchill): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a lot of questions, but I'm limited to maybe one question.
You mentioned that we had invited you for an economic development initiative that you are undertaking in the department. One of the things you mentioned was the uncertainty that exists and costs millions of dollars, or maybe billions of dollars, of involvement by outside people or investors, or people who want to extract or develop the resource.
Jack mentioned earlier the extinguishment policy. I know we did a report on it. There were recommendations that were made to the government.
Basically, the recommendation was simple: remove it. I can't really fathom or understand what the problem is. If you asked the people to extinguish the rights they already have, what you are doing then is asking them to extinguish the opportunities they have. These are economic, educational, and social opportunities that are there and to which they already have access. Why would you want to extinguish those opportunities?
I believe the report was very clear in terms of resolving that problem and how that can be handled in terms of not requiring aboriginal people to extinguish their inherent rights. The federal government recognizes that already. Why would the federal government, on the other hand, take away those rights? It's demeaning. I can't find a rationale for that type of thinking. Taking away those rights for a few more benefits goes against the very nature of our Canadian Constitution in which our rights are really recognized.
I know that we had correspondence on that issue, and you mentioned you are undertaking initiatives to discuss maybe the wording of extinguishment. But as long as the policy is there...if there's a failure to arrive at that, the policy will always be there.
I could mention many reports that have been done, including the royal commission, on extinguishment. Why can't you remove that policy? It's hindering negotiations.
Mr. Irwin: On some of the things it's easier. You can't have a blanket extinguishment and you can't have carte blanche. When we negotiate, say in the Nisga'a deal, x number of hectares of land and so many dollars, it's impossible for me to go back to Finance or Treasury Board and say it's a deal but it's not a deal. There has to be some certainty...or a percentage of the fishery. I can't say it's 10% now, we could go to 20%, we could go to 12%, but we don't have the right.
.1220
Within the B.C. treaty process, after we agree on certain things, we deal government to government within the Constitution.
So there are certain things that there has to be certainty in. The trick in our search for certainty is not to go beyond what is good and take away rights that exist. This is the difficult and the grey area. I can't say here that there's no more extinguishment policy, because it's back. We negotiate land, moneys, and percentages. That's it; that's the deal.
You're talking about health, education, treaty rights - these are the broad issues that are causing problems in the negotiations. I prefer to take some time and think about these issues, get the figures, and get precedence, rather than do what was done with the numbered treaties. Some of these numbered treaties were done in a couple of days. It was said we'll give you a box of tools, $5 a chief, a suit for the head man, maybe a school, maybe a little bit of help - and half a province was gone.
I prefer to go step by step and not make the mistakes we made 100 years ago.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Bachand, two minutes.
Mr. Bachand: I'll try to say a lot in two minutes.
The Chairman: I know it's a challenge.
Mr. Bachand: I've noticed that Ms Williams is replacing Mr. Stagg. I'm concerned about him. Is he still the Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction?
An honourable member: Oh, yes.
Mr. Bachand: Mr. Stagg told us that the housing policy was to be disclosed before the summer. When will this fundamental policy be made public? Everyone tells us that there's a lack of housing.
Could you give us an overview of these thorny issues which are still in the news? Amongst other things, I'm thinking of Davis Inlet; what steps have you taken in this matter?
I've been told that there are issues still unresolved in Ipperwash. Could you give us an idea of them?
I noticed that one of the two Kanesatake chiefs is here today. Could you tell us if you've finally come to a decision concerning one of them, or whether there are still two chiefs in Kanesatake?
Your department gives $1 billion for social assistance and $50 million for economic development. How would you reverse the situation so that $1 billion could be earmarked for economic development and $50 million for social assistance?
[English]
Mr. Irwin: I'll try to give short answers.
On our housing policy, we're now building about 3,000 units a year and renovating around 3,000. We will be coming out with a policy, probably within the next four to eight weeks.
On Davis Inlet, we're moving along. We have some pretty serious negotiations going on with the Province of Newfoundland on how we're going to split paying for this.
As for Ipperwash, on the federal side we have Mr. Justice Reid as a facilitator. We have a lawyer - Mohawk, mature, a former DIAND official - as an adjudicator. At the meetingMr. Harper and I had at Ipperwash, we nailed down the six or eight points that the federal government was involved in, such as transferring the property and cleaning it up. The Ipperwash people themselves will be doing the work. Roy Whitney, the chief from Tsuu T'Ina, who knows how to clean up armaments, has a company in there working with the chief.
This will get settled. The big problem at Ipperwash is that little piece of the park. We have no negotiating authority in that park. That's between the province and the first nation there. We have allocated some dollars to research - not much - to see whether it's a burial site.
.1225
With respect to Kanesatake, there's been no decision. I don't know whether I have authority. I probably don't.
Chief Peltier was elected last year for a three-year term. We spent $50,000 for a consulting firm to go in there and watch the election. No one complained about the outcome of the election, and according to the consultants the election was on the up and up. That's a problem they're going to have to either solve themselves or go to the court about. I don't think I have any jurisdiction to remove a chief during his term of election.
You're absolutely right: I've said over and over again that because social assistance is so large and economic development is so small, it is almost an indictment of 50 to 75 years of government policy with aboriginal people, and that's what we're trying to change.
The Chairman: Ms Bridgman, did you need an extra five?
Ms Bridgman: I have one question. I would like some expansion on access to seed capital, start-up money, or whatever we want to call it. There were several references in the video to that. It has also come up several times, one way or another, in committee. There seems to be some difficulty in getting access to moneys because of lack of collateral and this type of thing. What is the department doing to resolve this?
Mr. Irwin: I'll have Mr. Doughty answer this. He's my economic development adviser.
Mr. Jim Doughty (Special Assistant to the Minister, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs): At DIAND we are sponsoring part of the old strategy you were talking about before, under CAEDS. We have CEDO officers on reserve or in the tribal council. Through projects and work plans that are sent to us, they get x amount of dollars per year to run the CEDO and to help seed new first nation businesses.
So the first time a person on reserve wants to open up, say, a micro business, he will go to the CEDO officer. The officer will guide him to the seed money. He will also have his contribution. He will then go to Industry Canada for any more loans he may need.
Ms Bridgman: That's not quite the tack I was taking. That's a government program. I'm making reference to self-sufficiency. What kinds of things are we doing to allow these people not to come to government but to go to the bank, just like I can?
Mr. Irwin: You can have all the policies in the world. The Prime Minister is correct: a buck is going to go where a buck wants to go. We can't force banks to do things because we say this is a great policy. They are there and the business people are there because they see they can make a profit. More and more of them are doing this.
I talked to real estate agents yesterday, I've talked to the banks, I've talked to business people, and more and more of them are looking at aboriginal people as good investments and good partners. It's a funny situation; you've got to get through a lot of different customs. For example, there's a Montreal business meeting in the next few weeks, and the Montreal businessmen are asking whether they can go to the Mohawk reserve. The Mohawks are saying these guys from Montreal are coming to our reserve.
We have to break these barriers down. The first thing we are doing is matching them up, getting them to meet each other. As you saw with Eagle Forest Products in New Brunswick, I think that's the way to go. The first nations put up something like $5 million for all the New Brunswick first nations; they have 10% of that company. MacMillan Bloedel Limited put up $40 million, and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce put up about the same amount. I can't remember the exact amounts but they're around that. It was all unguaranteed by government. Usually when banks want investment there, they want government guarantees. So we're looking for more of those.
It's important not only for exposure to the government but also because it means the banks have to go in and make their own assessment. Thirty years ago they did that. The bank manager looked at the deal and said it was a good deal or a bad deal. We've had almost three decades of bank managers sitting in offices, government guaranteeing the business; they just said sure, fine, we're going to get paid.
.1230
We have to get back more to the types of assessments made in the 1950s, specifically. That takes time, because we're telling them that they have to make up their minds, that we'll give them some help but are not guaranteeing the project completely, and that they have to take some risk. It's working. It's slow, but it's working.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Before closing, I'd like to say to you, Mr. Minister, and to Deputy Minister Serson that the working relationship within this committee is a good one, and in part thanks to both of you and your departments. One thing we cannot complain about is accessibility to people and information. I want to thank you very much for that.
Now I invite both of you to take a couple of minutes each for closing remarks.
Mr. Anawak: I have a point of order. You said earlier that if we need to stretch beyond the time, we could do it.
The Chairman: It's stretched beyond the time. Go ahead.
Mr. Anawak: Thank you. It's a rare time that the members of the opposition have the minister to talk to and to ask questions of - well, not so much for me.
On another issue, you mentioned the $400 million fund for aboriginal businesses. I note that in the construction businesses you need bonding, and some of those aboriginal businesses may not have the ability to put together the 10% or whatever it is. What would you do in those cases?
Mr. Irwin: It's a major problem, but the bonding is being addressed under the procurement policy. Most of those 18,000 businesses are small businesses. You have the big business. Servinor, which is owned by the Cree, grosses $45 million a year in annual sales, but that's unique. Most of them are smaller companies, so that very point that Mr. Anawak is bringing up is being addressed in the procurement policy. It's at the top of the list.
The Chairman: Are there any more questions? Do you have closing remarks?
Mr. Irwin: Thank you very much to members of the committee.
The Chairman: Thank you.
This meeting is adjourned.