Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 2 - Evidence - April 20 meeting
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 20, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:32 a.m. to examine and report upon planned federal expenditures, as set out in the 2004-2005 Main Estimates and the March 2004 federal budget, in relation to programs and services delivered to First Nation communities by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Senator Nick G. Sibbeston (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I welcome the minister, his staff and the observers who are here. I would commend the minister on the role he played that contributed to the success of the meeting between the Prime Minister and Aboriginal leaders, which was held yesterday. I appreciate that it has only been one night since the meeting, but if you have thought of any changes that you would want to make in that short time, please let us know. Please proceed.
The Honourable Andrew Mitchell, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Honourable senators, I am joined by Mr. Horgan and Ms. Davis. As was indicated to colleagues beforehand, I will make an opening statement, but I must depart at 10:15 a.m., but my officials will remain to answer any additional questions you may have.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to talk about DIAND's activities, particularly in relation to the Estimates and to the budget. I wish to deal with some broad issues first.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me an opening to talk about yesterday's round table. I will outline some of the objectives we are trying to pursue. I will also speak to some of the principles we will try to employ in moving forward on some of those objectives.
At the round table yesterday, the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government of Canada, detailed three specific different policy thrusts or approaches that he wants to take. The first was clearly to establish new and invigorated relationships with the Aboriginal communities in Canada — the Inuit, First Nations and Metis. He has made the importance of those relationships very clear.
The second related to four key policy areas where he identified progress needs to be made in the short term and beyond. Those four key areas are education, health, economic development and housing. There were extensive conversations with the 70 leaders and others who attended. I believe that some 24 members of cabinet attended at one time or another. The Prime Minister made very clear the importance of the agenda to the government. Some good discussions focussed on those four areas.
The third area where the Prime Minister made a commitment is one about which he feels very strongly, and that is the importance of establishing, in a public and transparent way, the objectives that he wants to achieve in these policy initiatives and to have a regular reporting process to monitor progress. He wants to ensure that there is an opportunity for Aboriginal Canadians and Canadians in general to see the success that we are making in those particular areas.
The Prime Minister has indicated that he wants to engage all of his ministers who have parts of this particular file to work in a bilateral relationship with the leadership of the communities to begin that work as quickly as possible and to try to work towards achieving the objectives.
We saw the Prime Minister dealing with the primary relationship, which is that between the Government of Canada and Aboriginal Canadians. However, other relationships have bearing on this file. The secondary relationship has to be that between Canada, the provinces and the Aboriginal communities. The provinces do have a role to play, particularly in some aspects of service delivery. That also applies to the territorial governments.
As colleagues know, at some point later this year there will be a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers and Aboriginal leaders to try to carry forward in that venue many of the issues that were discussed yesterday.
The relationships within the federal government are also important. As I mentioned, some 24 of my colleagues were in attendance yesterday. More than 14 departments have a significant role to play in Aboriginal affairs. It is important that we have the appropriate communications within the government. The Prime Minister, in assuming office, created an Aboriginal affairs committee of cabinet, which is his approach to bringing that horizontality to the file under his leadership. He chairs that committee, which provides an opportunity for all the ministers responsible for Aboriginal matters to discuss the issues collectively. We must move away from the stovepipe approach, which is common in government, and deal with issues horizontally.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister made an announcement about the machinery of government. He spoke about a separate Inuit secretariat within the Department of Indian Affairs. That has been promoted for some time. The Prime Minister believes it to be an important deliverable.
In our approach as a department, senators, certain items are important in terms of our goals and objectives. We must take a two-part strategic approach. The first part is to ensure that the mechanisms by which we deliver our support to First Nations and to Aboriginal communities are effective. When investing in, say, housing, we must ensure that the money invested yields the maximum return. When investing in education, we must ensure that our processes and structures will allow us to be most effective.
We must ensure that the delivery process we adopt, the pipeline, is the correct one. Once that is accomplished and there is confidence that we are getting the maximum benefit for the investments, then we must consider where we may need to make new investments.
Much of our discussion yesterday dealt with identifying the types of processes that we need in order for our investments to be most effective. We talked about the priority areas where those investments have occurred. We are committed to developing the types of structures that we need.
Certain principles underlie that approach. For instance, it came out loud and clear yesterday that it is absolutely critical to build capacity within First Nations and within Aboriginal communities to deliver services. There is no system. Government cannot simply develop solutions in Ottawa and try to deliver in communities across the country from Ottawa. Rather, government needs to work in a way that will provide First Nations and other Aboriginal communities with the capacity to deliver services on their own and that will give them the tools that they require. We will take that approach.
We want to have what the Prime Minister called, ``transformational change.'' I have spoken many times about the definition of the ``insanity'' of doing the same thing in the same way and yet expecting different results. We are quite prepared, and we need to be prepared, to simply stop doing things in the same way if we are not satisfied with the results. If we keep doing things in the same way we will likely get the same results. Part of what yesterday was about and part of my approach in the department is to think outside the box — to take different approaches.
We can do a number of things. I talked about the particular issues that we need to work on. We must work on accelerating — and I believe firmly in this — the process by which we achieve self-governance in this country and by which we deal with the number of land claims in this country.
We must adhere to certain principles in taking a collaborative approach. What we do and what we accomplish must be done collectively. I do not think that any other approach will work because it must be inclusive. Aboriginal Canadians must be an integral part of not only the delivery of the solutions but also the development of the solutions. Their needs and aspirations must be reflected in the solutions that they see going forward. To do otherwise would make success difficult. As was mentioned yesterday, we must have a shared vision, and we must move forward in our relationship on the basis of respect. One would hope, over time, that that would lead to trust in our relationships.
In previous portfolios others heard me speak of my firm belief in a bottom-up approach. In this instance, that means that solutions must come from the communities. Aboriginal communities across Canada face many different challenges. One community's challenges in southwestern Ontario are different from the challenges faced by communities on the Prairies, in Atlantic Canada or in northern Canada. We need to be prepared to understand those differences and be prepared to work with the communities in developing solutions to their challenges in a way that makes the most sense for them.
I know that the committee is reviewing the Main Estimates. The current Estimates show an approximate $495 million increase in the Estimates for DIAND, bringing our expenditures up to approximately $5.8 billion. A number of new initiatives that we will administer were put forward in the budget, as well as additional dollars that some of my colleagues will administer in the budget.
Honourable senators, I would be happy to take questions.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: Firstly, I would like to raise two points. You mentioned that the way things are done currently cannot continue because we run the risk of confronting the same problems as we did in the past. Therefore, how should we proceed from now on?
There is a corporate culture within the Department of Indian Affairs: Decisions are made within the department and they are then communicated to the communities. This way of working has not been successful up until now, and this culture must therefore change. What is the department going to do to change this culture?
People are not acting in bad faith. Before, this is how things were done. However, we must now consider a change.
My second question deals with the ability of first nations to manage programs. You undoubtedly know that very often, rightly or wrongly, the legitimacy of first nations representation at the national and provincial levels is called into question. The band council is not called into question because it is legislated. It is the only institution that is specifically defined in law; other institutions do not have such a framework.
What can we do, not only within Indian Affairs, but in general, to make sure that the first nations receive the national representation they wish for?
Perfection, of course, is unattainable. However, improvements must be made in order to give this country's first nations, aboriginal people credibility.
You are aware of the current rumours about band councils' abilities to manage adequately. How can we help the first nations to achieve better representation and please all parties concerned?
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Allow me to address both of those questions. First, within the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, one of the realities is that the men and women who work for the department have a genuine desire to see an effective closing of the social and economic gap between Aboriginal Canadians and other Canadians. They have such a genuine desire. When we take the collaborative, bottom-up approach of empowering communities, it is seen as a more effective approach because we will begin to see a significant buy-in to it. That is part of it.
Second, I have taken a clear approach to leadership. On the same day that I assumed my current portfolio, Mr. Horgan took over as Deputy Minister. There was a change at the ministerial and official levels. I know that Mr. Horgan feels much as I do and he will have an opportunity to answer your questions later. He will clearly demonstrate that he shares my views. Change begins at the top and people will see that we are genuinely committed to that approach. They will also see the effectiveness of such an approach because their desire is to have positive outcomes.
There are a number of issues in respect of how to make First Nations governments more effective. The federal government has an important obligation in this. The Prime Minister spoke to it yesterday and I have spoken to it many times: we cannot continue to make things as difficult as we have made them. Consider the issue of economic development. It is a challenge to determine the appropriate entry point for government when dealing with economic development and Aboriginal Canadians because numerous programs and departments are involved. Government needs to consolidate its efforts so that communities do not have to spend so much time figuring out which door to knock on. Sometimes when the right door is found and knocked on, the kind of administrative burdens placed on First Nations governments is excessive.
We need to streamline that process and the challenge is to do that in a way that maintains accountability, because we do not want to lessen the accountability. We cannot have people filling out forms and using endless reams of paper just for the sake of doing that. We must examine the process that we impose and ensure that people can deal with it effectively and efficiently.
As I said yesterday, it is the Government of Canada's objective and my objective to move from an Indian Act regime to a self-government regime. The Indian Act is archaic legislation. It is an administrative burden placed on First Nations communities.
In many cases, First Nations leaders and their communities have great ideas and take great initiatives but they are stifled by 19th century legislation that we are trying to operate with in the 21st century. We must move away from that but, unfortunately, that cannot happen overnight. I have made a clear commitment to dealing with the interim steps with First Nations leaders and First Nations communities in order to make that transition. I am look forward to seeing the outcome of those discussions.
It requires work on both sides, senator. It is not simply a matter of telling First Nations communities that they must be more effective, you must also create the environment that will allow them to be more effective. I intend to do both.
Senator St. Germain: Your words are encouraging. I just hope you can deliver. We try to be non-partisan in this committee. DIAND has had some good ministers. When Jane Stewart was minister she consulted with everybody. Yet, she was not effective because the transition from the Indian Act to self-government is languishing in the back rooms of government. It has become too costly. Some of us have tried to come forward with enabling legislation for self- government, but the partisanship mentality has thwarted our ability to make any great progress in that area.
I share the concern expressed by Senator Gill, and that is you have an empire in DIAND. Our concern is genuine. I have been in Ottawa for 20-some years and I have heard governments of both stripes make the same commitments.
Using my people, the Metis, as an example, it was not until the Supreme Court of Canada made the Powley decision that there was any thought of dealing with that aspect of our Aboriginal peoples. Senator Gill, Senator Watt, Senator Adams and others have worked diligently on behalf of their Aboriginal communities.
Although your intentions and those of the Prime Minister are sincere, I believe that DIAND should be dismantled, and I will tell you why I say that. I was Minister of Transport when we were devolving airports. The Prime Minister asked me to take responsibility for this particular area. I sat down with the Deputy Minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister and reminded them that three or four former ministers had gone through this process but that nothing had happened. I told them I did not believe anything would happen until we designated a point person.
The devolution of airports involves a partial dismantlement of a department so, of course, there is resistance in a department to that type of process. I had the toughest time finding a point person, but I did eventually get one. Today, the airports have been devolved and they are successful economic generators.
I believe that you must designate individuals as point people. They can come from within the department, because there is nothing wrong with utilizing their experience. Until you do that, the concerns of Senator Gill and others, including me, are fair. I do not think that you will be successful, sir, with all due respect. Why would anybody want to dismantle an empire of which he or she is part? It is counter to everything we are about.
I am not fully aware of what you or the Prime Minister said yesterday, so I am hesitant to comment. However, this committee is cognisant of the treaties and agreements the Government of Canada has with our native peoples, but the toughest part is implementing them and getting by DIAND.
The Cree in Quebec appeared before our committee and they told us that they could not implement treaties because of the roadblocks put up by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
God bless you, sir. Good luck to you. You may want to comment on this. I can only recite what my experience has taught me.
Our committee members work together in trying to improve the lives of our Aboriginal peoples, and I am sure your heart is in the right place. I just hope that you can take some of what Senator Gill and others will tell you here this morning as advice in helping you effect the very honourable direction that you have chosen.
Mr. Mitchell: Thank you, senator, for your comments. You are being honest and forthright in pointing out the challenges, and I will not diminish them. They do exist and they need to be addressed as part of the process. You are quite right, if you ignore them, the opportunity to succeed will be diminished.
Although I have not had as many opportunities to deal with you as I have with many other colleagues here, I will heed your advice. I recognize that you have significant amount of experience. Having been in Ottawa for 20 years you will gained the experience of working with people from different backgrounds. I am prepared and, indeed, anxious to listen to the advice, wisdom and direction that this committee, either individually or collectively, can provide. To do otherwise would be foolish.
Senator Tkachuk: The Estimates have a total of $5.8 billion in the coming fiscal year. Is that all the money in the federal government departments for Aboriginal matters? Is there money in other federal departments that also fund Aboriginal programs?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes, senator, there is. I do not have the exact figures, but there is approximately another $3 billion. The total is $8 billion.
Senator Tkachuk: We are talking about $8.8 billion.
Mr. Mitchell: That may be high, but it is a substantial amount of money.
Senator Tkachuk: In the budget, we have somewhere in the area of $965.522 million dollars in a line item that includes meeting housing needs on reserves. How many houses did we build last year?
Mr. Mitchell: I do not have those figures, senator, but I could obtain them. In many respects, housing is dealt with by First Nations.
Senator Tkachuk: How do they do that?
Mr. Mitchell: They make decisions about the kinds of investments that they will undertake. That can be done by the use of general or direct funds that may be available to them, the use of alternate sources of revenue, or the use of CMHC funding in order to build. Some have been successful in levering the private sector to make investments in their communities so that they can build. There are many different ways to obtain the funds.
Senator, you have raised an excellent subject matter. When I spoke about thinking outside the box when developing different solutions, the issue of housing sets a good example. There are opportunities to develop housing in partnership with other organizations. In some areas of the country that may not be available because of the prevalence of social housing. The key is to understand where opportunities present themselves.
At the conference yesterday, the national chief made the point and I totally agree with him. We have had discussions before and we will provide funding within the AFN for a secretariat to work specifically on housing. The department will explore, in conjunction with the AFN and CMHC, the matter of the creation of a First Nations secretariat. We believe that there are different ways to approach issues, that there are alternative solutions, and that the process and initiative should be led and driven by First Nations.
Senator Tkachuk: The Prime Minister mentioned that the private sector could be included in housing projects.
You said that the bands make the decisions on housing. Do First Nations people build their own houses? Would it not be an objective to encourage families to build their own houses on their own properties? Is that what we want or is that what we do not want?
Mr. Mitchell: Senator, it is not what we want that is important, it is what the people in First Nation communities want that is the issue.
Senator Tkachuk: It is not the issue.
Mr. Mitchell: It should be the issue. Senator, speaking for myself, I would take some umbrage if someone told me what my personal shelter should look like.
Let us consider land tenure. We have a European idea of what land tenure should be, but that does not necessarily mean it is a better approach than the idea that First Nations communities have about land tenure. They believe in the collective ownership of the land, whereas we believe in individual ownership of the land. I do not think one idea is better than the other. The ideas are different because they derive from different cultural backgrounds. It is appropriate that people from different cultural backgrounds hold and deal with land in such a way that they are comfortable as a people. That is an appropriate approach to take.
Could the private sector be involved? It is involved in a number of communities across the country. Should First Nations employment and Aboriginal employment flow from the construction of homes? Certainly, that objective should be achieved. First Nation contractors and businesses are in the housing market. It works, in that sense, senator, and I do not think the answer is to simply impose a particular solution.
Senator Tkachuk: I did not say we are imposing a solution but I did ask whether individual citizens decide what homes they should have and whether they should build their own homes. Minister, you then said that we are not about to make that decision. I am not imposing, I do not want to impose and I do not believe anyone should impose. The bands are able to decide on their homes with their money, which comes from the taxpayers in the amount of about $1 billion.
How many homes have we built? Who decides who should have a home? What is the public policy that drives home building on reserves? In Saskatchewan, I have seen many homes built on reserves and, frankly, community ownership does not work that well.
Are you telling me that you want to see not private ownership but collective ownership of all property on the reserves? Is that the direction of the federal government?
Mr. Mitchell: My official gave me the figure of approximately 2600 houses built nationally last year.
A First Nation community would decide to proceed with creating housing stock in its community in consideration of the circumstances that the community faces. The way in which a large community such as the Six Nations in southwestern Ontario develops housing is very different from the way a small, isolated community of 200 or 300 people in northern Ontario does it. They will take different approaches because they have different needs and realities under which they operate. That is critical.
The community owns First Nation land collectively. They use a number of mechanisms to designate a part of the land to families for occupancy. The various communities do it differently based on their circumstances and on community consensus.
Senator Tkachuk: When you talk about self-government, is it the public policy of the present government that Aboriginal peoples have an inherent right to self-government? Would it fall under section 35 of the Constitution? Would we have a third order of government?
Mr. Mitchell: Self-government is an inherent right. The department has been dealing with the establishment of self- government in many situations across the country. All of them have elements in common as well as differences. Certainly, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution of Canada apply in each case of self-government agreements. Where the self-government agreement does not speak specifically to a particular authority, that authority rests with either the provincial or federal government, depending on the authority. The people are citizens of Canada, so I do not see this as a third order of government, rather, I see this as self-government for First Nations communities.
Senator Tkachuk: Would that be similar to Nisga'a or Sechelt? Which model would be used?
Mr. Mitchell: Again, senator, there will not necessarily be one model applied across the country. Basic principles are to be applied, but we are prepared to deal with First Nations communities to address their individual circumstances. In some cases, the views of one community are quite different from another community. We deal with them through negotiation and the development of the most appropriate model, for both sides, agreed upon.
Senator Tkachuk: Of the $8 billion, how much is spent on health care?
Mr. Mitchell: I will obtain that information for you, senator. That does not fall, as you may know, under DIAND but under Health Canada. I will try to obtain that figure from the minister.
Senator Tkachuk: I would appreciate it.
Senator Mercer: Minister, welcome. Congratulations on your appointment. I have always considered that job to be one of the toughest jobs in government.
As you know, I spent a lot of much working with people in the Aboriginal community trying to increase their involvement in the public affairs of the country. I have shared some of their frustrations and I have also enjoyed some of their successes. I find it frustrating that we do not celebrate their successes as much as we should. We continue to hear, here, the other place and in the media, about all the failures and things that have gone wrong either on reserves or in cities.
Has the department put together a catalogue of some of the great success stories, because there are success stories across the country? In my province, there have been one or two very important success stories, and I am aware of some great success stories in British Columbia. These are not only great success stories for the general population to hear, but also great success stories as role models for people in the Aboriginal community.
Mr. Mitchell: We have done some of that, senator but not enough. You are quite right. We should be talking more about it to not only the First Nations or Aboriginal audience but to the broader Canadian audience.
For instance, there is a process taking place now in north-eastern Alberta where 18 private sector companies, the provincial and federal governments, and the Athabasca Tribal Council are coming together on a significant economic development package that will ensure that those First Nations have an opportunity to benefit from the development of a natural resource. It is a wonderful partnership. They have been negotiating for some time and they are close to coming to an agreement. The federal government is most supportive of it.
This will be an example of a good news story for those communities and First Nations, but it will also serve as a model for other parts of country. You are absolutely right, senator. We must do a better job of getting that message out.
Senator Mercer: My second question is more pointed. I did spend time with your predecessor, Minister Nault, talking about his plans for changes. Frankly, I liked them, although I am not saying that I do not like yours. We are only starting to hear some of them.
Perhaps you could give us a quick thumb-nail sketch of the difference between the Martin-Mitchell plan and the Chrétien-Nault plan.
Mr. Mitchell: The objectives, in many cases, are similar. As Senator St. Germain said, there has been a long history of trying to deal with this.
One of the principles that I want to bring to the portfolio and to the process is that we work in collaboration, ensuring that the solutions we develop are ones that are developed in partnership with those people who will be most impacted by them, that is, First Nations people. That needs to be an upfront process.
We all have similar reactions. By that I mean, if someone comes forward with an idea that has been 90 per cent developed, in many cases the content will not matter, because no one wants to take up something is almost a fait accompli. You will get into a process argument. It is important to move forward in a consultative way.
In order for that to work, you must have a consensus that you will work within certain time frames and that you will deal with implementation of the ideas that come forward. It came out clearly yesterday that we need to proceed collectively. We have the Indian Act with all its weaknesses and problems. We also have the objective of reaching self- government.
To achieve self-government will take a long time, so we must have an in-depth discussion about what will happen during the interim period of time. What approach ought we to take?
I do not know what solutions will come out of that. I will not prejudge that because it is tough to hear other opinions if I have already made a decision. I want to have a perspective on how we will deal with that interim period.
Senator Mercer: I do not necessarily have the same faith as you and the Prime Minister seem to have in the AFN leadership. There is a disconnect between the AFN leadership and the leadership in a number of bands and the Aboriginal people who they should be representing. One thing that I liked about Minister Nault's approach was that, while he took criticism for having not spoken to details with AFN leadership and some of the band leadership, he did speak to the broader membership. I think you need to blend that discussion with the AFN with a discussion with the rank and file, if you will, that is, an Aboriginal person who is not in a leadership position. That is where the problems have arisen in the past. We must be careful in that regard as we proceed with your plan.
Mr. Mitchell: You are right, senator, to mention that we must deal with both the leadership and with individuals. It is important when designing a plan that you include dealing with First Nations leadership. The AFN has that national role. You must also include a way to allow individuals to express their opinions.
It is no different from our role as parliamentarians. We assume a certain leadership role and we expect leaders to consult with us in that role. We also feel an obligation to listen to the opinions and views of individuals.
That is a similar process. I think it is an important one.
Senator, I need to depart, but I my officials will be here for some time.
The Chairman: Thank you. You have a very tough job as minister, but it is very exciting in that there is openness among Aboriginal leaders. Obviously, the Prime Minister is focusing on Aboriginal peoples.
You have a very tough but very exciting job, thank you again for coming. We know that your officials have a tremendous amount of power and influence, and I am sure that they will be able to provide us with many answers.
Mr. Mitchell: Thank you very much senators, I appreciate it.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: If you know me, you will not be surprised that my question is about the Aboriginal head start. It is not called ``Aboriginal head start'' in the budget notes. It is called ``early childhood development programming.''
From my perusal of this document I see that there has been no increase in funding. In fact, it seems to be exactly the same announcement that was made in 2002. The details are on page 11 of the information provided to us. I do not know if those funds are for the coming five years or part of the original five years, in which case, three years would remain.
From my calculations, it would amount to much less than 1 per cent of the budget.
How many communities are being served by this program currently? Are those communities spread across the country? I have the impression that, in New Brunswick, only several communities were accessing this program.
I applaud the program. However, I would like to know a little about the progress. You may not be able to give that to me. If not, I would very much appreciate having an update from the officials.
Mr. Michael Horgan, Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Senator, that program is not run only by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, there is a split amongst the Department of Health, DIAND, and the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. The principle responsibility for the Aboriginal Head Start Program is with Health Canada. We will have to get back to you with the detailed numbers on that.
I might make a more general comment. This splitting is what the Prime Minister was talking about yesterday and what Mr. Mitchell was talking about this morning. A large number of departments have bits and pieces of responsibility for Aboriginal affairs. Admittedly, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has the biggest piece of that puzzle, but it is not the only one. One of the frustrations that we have heard expressed by Aboriginal peoples and communities, which we acknowledge as a government, is that many players are involved and sometimes, by that, the government places a burden on Aboriginal communities. It is serious matter, and we want to address it.
I will get back to you with the actual numbers.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I notice on page 11 under the continuing discussion of social issues that it would seem that the emphasis, at least in this document, is on the prevention of child abuse. That is exceedingly important. However, there is no mention of foetal alcohol syndrome, pre-natal or post-natal nutrition, tobacco, et cetera. I would like to have some information on that program.
Mr. Horgan: I am not sure to which document you are referring.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: It is a document prepared for the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples by the Parliamentary Research Bureau on the subject of fiscal expenditures for 2004-05 in relation to Aboriginal peoples.
The Chairman: It is our document.
Mr. Horgan: That particular area is the responsibility of the Department of Health. I will undertake to ensure that you get the answers to those questions. In fact, if you have detailed questions that you would like answered, I would be more than happy to ensure that you get the answers. We could give you information on what we are doing in the areas of foetal alcohol syndrome and early childhood development.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: You might be able to answer a budget question. This paper notes $325 million over five years, or $65 million annually, is to be spent on a head start program. I take that to be a continuation of the announcement made in 2002. It is not a new announcement.
Mr. Horgan: That is correct.
Senator Léger: Does non-Aboriginal training fall under your department? I heard this morning that collective ownership is the Aboriginal mentality, and that individual ownership is the European way.
I also heard that self-government is an inherent right. It is in the Indian Act.
You also just said that Health Canada looks after the Aboriginal Head Start Program.
Which department has the money for the training of non-Aboriginals? We have to pass that on to others. Is there any department that has charge of that? Is it DIAND or is it the 24 ministers who were present yesterday.
You answered Senator Trenholme Counsell that some things are the responsibility of Health Canada. It sounds as if the responsibility is divided into many departments. Does this mean that each of the 24 ministries has a little piece? Is there any parallel training for those who know nothing? I am among them, and I am learning a great deal.
Mr. Horgan: I count myself in that category too, I am afraid. You are right. There are 24 separate departments that have some piece of Aboriginal programming. With respect to labour market training, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development has the responsibility. They administer Aboriginal human resource development agreements whereby they provide monies to First Nations communities under an agreement to support the training associated with particular kinds of projects and training for a variety of things. That department provides training both on and off reserve. There are urban Aboriginal components of that as well.
The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has responsibility, working with First Nations, for things such as education, post-secondary education, housing and basic funding for governance. We have responsibility for claims negotiations and the North.
However, a number of other department are involved. The second biggest involvement would be by the Department of Health, which operates Aboriginal health programming. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development has the responsibility for skills development and training. One components of what they do is Aboriginal training.
Industry Canada has a huge component of the economic development funding. Aboriginal Business Canada comes under Industry Canada. They play an important role in Aboriginal economic development. The new department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has responsibilities in the area of Aboriginal policing. The Department of Justice is a huge player with respect to the entire Aboriginal file. There are lots of bits and pieces.
Senator Tkachuk: I have a supplementary question on that. My understanding is that the $3 billion, apart from the $5.8 billion, contains about $1.5 billion to $1.6 for health, which leaves $1.4 billion in other departments. Could you provide a breakdown of that to the committee?
Mr. Horgan: I can provide that.
Senator Tkachuk: How much is in each department and what is the purpose of those monies? We would like a complete picture.
Mr. Horgan: Yes, we will provide that.
Senator Léger: Is anything being done to stop this fragmentation? Those many little pieces are a concern to Aboriginals.
As well, the education of non-Aboriginals is important. Who will take primary responsibility for this, or will it be done in little pieces again?
Mr. Horgan: The Prime Minister indicated yesterday that he wanted to look at, in the parlance of the Government of Canada, the machinery in respect of the delivery of programs and services. Ultimately, the Prime Minister will make the decision on its structure. He has sent a clear signal that it looks like, and the evidence would suggest that, we do not have our act together in an appropriate way in terms of the government's delivery of programs and services, and the Prime Minister has expressed an interest in determining what can be done about it.
In some areas, it is a lesser problem than in others. Various federal programs interface, such as early childhood development under Health Canada and K-12 education under DIAND. How should the government meld those programs? It is such interfacing that becomes problematic for First Nation communities.
The federal government has responsibility for K-12 education and for post-secondary education. How does that then relate to the training program under the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development? It is in such areas that have important linkages and interfaces that the most serious problems lie; and I agree that they must be looked at. In his remarks yesterday, the Prime Minister indicated a willingness to take a close look at that.
Senator Watt: I would like to return to a point that Senator Tkachuk raised concerning the community housing crisis to ensure that the record is explicit on this issue.
In northern and reserve communities, people do not tend to wait for government money to build their houses. A few members of the communities have the ability to strike deals with financial institutions to build their own houses. That fact needs to be stated. This does not apply to all communities. Many extremely poor people on reserves require assistance from the government. It is those people that we are talking about today. I wanted to make that clear for the record.
Mr. Horgan, what is your title?
Mr. Horgan: I am the Deputy Minister and Ms. Davis is the Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services.
Senator Watt: You deal with administrative aspects rather than the political aspects.
Mr. Horgan: That is correct.
Senator Watt: The minister advises and you act accordingly.
Mr. Horgan: That is pretty much it.
Senator Watt: I will try to keep my questions on an administrative level.
In the annual budget of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I have noticed that, after the adjustment for inflation, per capita spending has decreased by 7.4 per cent since 1995-96. I raise this issue because we noticed some months ago that Statistics Canada attempted to indicate to the public that a majority of Aboriginal people live off-reserve. We could not figure out how the number could be so high, because it represents more than 50 per cent. We looked at the numbers province-by-province and I will use Quebec as an example because it is far from representing reality. I believe that DIAND uses these figures when determining budget, political, economic or other decisions, according to the information I have been furnished by DIAND. We must revisit that to ensure that the numbers are correct. If they are incorrect, then we are misleading ourselves, misleading the public and misleading the Aboriginal people.
I would also like to address the housing issue. When the figure was adjusted for inflation, per capita spending on housing decreased by 27 per cent between 1996-97 and 2001-02. Yet, we know that the cost is on the increase. Again, the information was provided, according to DIAND, based on all funding and population figures from that department. We question that. The inflation rate figures were provided by Statistics Canada. We need some correct answers with additional information on those numbers.
My next area of concern is infrastructure funding. After the adjustment for inflation, per capita spending on infrastructure decreased by 31 per cent between 1996-97 and 2001-02. Again, we have some questions about that. Those numbers would be useful to this committee.
In DIAND's annual budget, the adjusted-for-inflation per capita spending on education decreased by 7 per cent between 1996-97 and 2001-02. DIAND's annual contribution is only the core funding and has nothing to do with funds obtained by Aboriginal communities from other sources. Other grants and spending by the Government of Canada have been excluded from this graph. Those specific contribution programs are considered representative and were selected for several reasons. We need to be clear on that.
I raise these issues because I believe that, for the first time, the Inuit people — whether from James Bay or from Nunavut or from Labrador — have been involved in negotiations. In the past, as Inuit, we took advantage of the Indian Act. Those negotiations concluded in an agreement that was signed in 1995.
During that period of negotiations, we dipped into the pie and pushed for a guaranteed amount of dollars to go toward housing, education, social needs and matters of that nature, on a per capita basis, and that included indexation to allow for the annual increase in population.
We are dealing with only one pie to access funding that we need to provide services to our communities for Indians and Inuit at this moment. I have also noticed through the information I have highlighted that only registered Indians are dealt with here. Off-reserve people, all others who are not necessarily considered the responsibility of DIAND are not taken into account. Only registered Indians and Inuit are being dealt with in the information that I highlighted.
Could you provide clear information to me? Earlier the Minister told us that he wants the department outside of the box in coming up with a solution to deal with the questions of relations and self-government.
Perhaps the process we went through yesterday was one step in the right direction. However, there are questions about whether that format was useful. In my opinion, it was useful to get the information out, but it could not necessarily lead to any conclusions.
If Aboriginal people in the future are to replace status Indians, one day the Indian Act will be obsolete and we will be self-governing. However, the definition of that word is a problem. What is self-government. What do you mean by self-government?
When you negotiate the institutions considered to be part of the public body with a group of people, that is the Aboriginal people, is that considered to be self-government, or is that one of the steps in the movement toward self- government? That is the question we would like to have answered by our politicians at some point. This is important. If we do not know the name of the game, what are we dealing with here? That will not provide any successful solution.
The Chairman: Senator Watt, you have posed many questions.
Senator Watt: I know, but please let me conclude.
Let me return to the scenario drawn by Senator St. Germain. He wished the Minister good luck. He did not think the process was useful. One of these days you will have to come to address this subject. I do not think a piece-meal process will produce anything fruitful. We will have to arrive at a package so that people fully understand the name of the game.
The Chairman: There are many technical questions to which, I am sure Mr. Horgan will provide responses. Is there any particular aspect of the question that you can answer briefly now?
Mr. Horgan: I cannot answer on the details of the numbers that Senator Watt just read, but correct me if I am wrong, that those were numbers that the Assembly of First Nations prepared, looking at the Main Estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs. They did share some preliminary versions of that with us, but we will have to look at those numbers in more detail. We would be happy to get back to you.
Am I correct, or did these numbers come from somewhere else?
Senator Gill: Those numbers also came from Statistics Canada.
Mr. Horgan: We are aware of that. We will have to take a closer look.
We did some initial analysis because the AFN was good enough to share that information with us. It has not been a secret. However, we will take a closer look at the numbers in the public domain and we will be happy to get back to you with our assessment.
Senator Watt: There is one other point that I should include in my question. Health showed a 12 per cent increase rather than a decrease. When you examine the Ontario numbers, those indicate a 14 per cent increase for the entire province.
Mr. Horgan: We must analyze the numbers of AFN.
As a general comment, as a department, we get an increase of 2 per cent per year for basic programming for First Nations communities. The argument by the Assembly of First Nations relates to how that 2 per cent compares with the actual growth rate in First Nations population on reserve and the price increases that are being faced for the services provided. We understand the point that the AFN is making, that is, you get a 2 per cent increase for basic services, whereas the population is growing and there is inflation and, therefore, the real per capita figure is decreasing. We understand the fundamental point that the AFN is making.
The AFN has separated those aspects of our budget that do appear in the Main Estimates which they would argue are not core. Things like the resolution of specific claims would arguably be, and are, liabilities of the Government of Canada to these First Nations communities for past wrongs, such as breaches of our fiduciary responsibilities. They should not be then included in the overall amount of money that goes to First Nations communities for basic services. These are in some sense payments. They are alternatives to court settlements, in effect. I believe that that is how the AFN has approached the subject.
As to overall support, we must look beyond the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We must consider the role of Health Canada and the former HRDC. We will get back to you on that.
With respect to the comments on the Inuit, that is more complicated in the sense that there is a number of layers of support, if you will, for Inuit. The territorial transfer, particularly in Nunavut, with 85 per cent of the population being Inuit, shows the federal transfer to the territories. The money is being used to fulfil territorial/provincial-type responsibilities in those areas. There are monies for land claims agreements and settlements. Then there are monies being provided by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Health Canada for non-insured health benefits and post-secondary education.
The honourable senator is quite right in his remarks with respect to on reserve and off reserve in the sense that, for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with respect to First Nations, the vast bulk of our monies goes to First Nations on reserve. Other monies go to First Nations individuals who are living off reserve. For example, you can access non-insured health benefits from Health Canada. As well, post-secondary education funding is accessible to First Nations kids going to university, although the decisions about how that money is actually spent on those individuals rests with the First Nation community.
It is true that there are many First Nations members who do not live on reserve and are not supported by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The vast bulk of our monies goes to First Nations communities.
Senator Pearson: My first question follows up on those of Senator Trenholme Counsell and others and is particularly related to children and families. I have been aware for a long time of the problems associated with the national funding formula, known as Directive 21, for child and family services programs that fund agencies. There was a review in 2000, which I read. There is a need for much greater flexibility. I am aware that in March 2003 INAC obtained policy authority to implement a more flexible funding methodology to support least disruptive measures, but this seems to be taking some time to come to fruition.
As a result of my long experience with children's issues, when I became aware of Directive 21 I realized that it had unintended effects. The only way one can get money is to put children into care. This does not support families to look after children where the child's identity is most strongly formed. I know that there has been a shift in INAC on this. Will this new funding method, which I hope has been developed, be implemented in the 2004-05 fiscal year?
Second, do the Main Estimates provide additional funding for preventive measures for First Nations communities to prevent child abuse?
Third, grants to culturally appropriate abuse prevention and protection services for Indian children resident on reserve, for which $5,621,000 was budgeted in both the 2002-2003 and the 2003-2004 Main Estimates, appear under ``items not required'' in the 2004-05 Main Estimates. What was funded under this budget line in the past and why is it no longer required? I hope it is tied in with the larger shift to more flexible funding.
Ms. Caroline Davis, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Honourable senators, working from the last question about the grants that you note fall under ``items not required,'' the reason for that is that it has been included in one of the other grants. It is the one that talks about grants providing income support. We have done some consolidation.
As you mentioned, in order to try to get flexibility on the way the funding methodology works, we have worked with Treasury Board to try to improve the authorities. That is why it appears that the funding has disappeared, but in fact it is still there.
Senator Pearson: Is the new formula in place?
Ms. Davis: I wish I could give you a definite answer on that. We have seen some quite large increases in the funding for child and family services agencies. It has been running at around 10 per cent a year so far.
As you can imagine, when we are receiving a much smaller percentage of funding increase, it has to be carefully managed.
You mentioned least disruptive methods. Trying to keep children in the home as long as possible under better circumstances is ideal. We are trying to implement that. However, I cannot give you a more definite answer. Perhaps we could get back to you on that.
Senator Christensen: I wish to make observations rather than ask questions. This department is certainly a challenge, but it is a great opportunity, too. As we all know, a very large pool of our youth in Canada is Aboriginal people. Canada should take full advantage of that opportunity.
There are three areas of impediments to the success of maximizing the dollars spent in this area. The first is the problems we have with such a diversification of the budget in so many different departments. There is a lot of waste in that. We could certainly maximize those dollars much better.
Second, the minister mentioned that there were four key areas dealt with yesterday: health, education, economic development and housing. The fifth area that should be dealt with is social issues. Unless you deal with the social issues, you cannot deal with any of the other four. You cannot put a lot of capital into housing unless you deal with the social issues first. We have repeatedly seen examples of that where bands and towns have been moved. Capital has been poured in, but the social issues have not been addressed, and the problems reappear.
The third issue came to my attention during our Aboriginal youth in urban areas study and in other visits that we have made to First Nations communities. Much money is lost through the administrative filter that is in place for the money that comes down for programs, both at the federal level and at the Aboriginal level. When the money gets down to the people who are actually delivering the programs, it has been filtered out. The $65 million a year for child and family services is a lot of money. If it went straight to those programs, it would do the job, but it does not. It is filtered out.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I would like to raise a few points, which I hope will be brought to the minister's attention.
Firstly, I would like to clarify that during the round table held yesterday on aboriginal issues, the government demonstrated its intention to work with aboriginal people. The political will of the Prime Minister as well as ministers present was evident. However, we heard a few comments which I would like to share today with honourable senators who were not at this meeting. One of these comments was the following:
[English]
``Who are you to tell me what I need when you don't even understand my needs?''
[Translation]
Another comment was made during yesterday's meeting, and I quote:
The government has developed structures and programs for us and not with us.
The political will is there. However, in order for this initiative to work properly and bear fruit, four points must be taken into consideration. The consultation process must be relevant from an aboriginal point of view. Aboriginal cultural diversity must be taken into consideration and the consultation must be carried out with aboriginals and not only for aboriginals.
Moreover, there are elements which relate to aboriginal programs scattered across several departments. We must find a way to bring these elements together for the benefit of aboriginal people, and according to their needs.
Thirdly, the current act does not meet the needs of aboriginal people. We must either amend the existing piece of legislation or create a new one.
Lastly, to echo the words of my colleague, we must make sure that Statistics Canada's data on the issue take aboriginal cultural diversity into account. Otherwise, we will find ourselves with irrelevant data, which will set back aboriginal development.
Those were the points that I wanted to raise. I do not expect to get an answer to all of these questions. However, I would like them to be brought to the minister's attention.
[English]
The Chairman: I want to thank the officials and the members of the public who have attended our meeting this morning and shown interest. You make us feel that the work we do is important.
The committee adjourned.