Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of April 25, 2006
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 25, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:35 a.m., pursuant to rule 88 of the Rules of the Senate, to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Ms. Gaëtane Lemay, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, good morning and welcome to the first meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. I see a quorum and as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair of the committee. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Sibbeston: I move that Senator St. Germain be chair of the committee.
Ms. Lemay: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Sibbeston that the Honourable Senator St. Germain do take the chair of this committee. Are there other nominations? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Lemay: The motion is carried. I invite Senator St. Germain to take the chair.
Senator St. Germain: Thank you.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chairman) in the chair.
The Chairman: Thank you, senators, for the nomination and support. I will try to live up to your expectations. My one objective is that this be a non-partisan committee as much as is humanly possible in Ottawa. If we moved it to the west, east or north, it would be totally non-partisan. In all sincerity, my objective as chair of this committee is to provide a major contribution to our Aboriginal peoples in Canada. I have worked and travelled with most of you over the years and I know full well that if we continue to work in the same way as under the former chairman, Senator Sibbeston, when I was deputy chair, we will be successful and Aboriginal peoples will benefit. There are great expectations of us on behalf of the Aboriginal community and, as I look around the room at the senators on this committee, I know that we will deliver for them.
The next order of business is the election of a deputy chair and I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Senator Peterson: I move that Senator Sibbeston be deputy chair of the committee.
The Chairman: Are there other nominations? Once, twice, closed.
All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried unanimously.
Senator Sibbeston: I am glad to be involved again with this committee, which will be extremely important during the life of this government. It is important that we continue the study on which we had made a good start under the previous government. I am impressed with the members of the committee, and if we work together, we will accomplish much.
The Chairman: Next we will elect the third senator to sit on the subcommittee on agenda and procedures — the steering committee. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.
Ms. Lemay: You have to determine who that third member will be. You should discuss that with Senator Sibbeston, who will obtain the whips' input.
The Chairman: Have you any instructions? It is non-partisan as far as I am concerned and that is how we should operate. Do you want time to consult on this? We do not need to make the decision now.
Senator Sibbeston: I would like to know which senators are interested in sitting on the steering committee. The role of the steering committee is to plan, organize and determine the work of the committee. If people are interested, it would be good to know now so that they may be considered.
The Chairman: Could we have a discussion now?
Ms. Lemay: If I may, it would be more flexible not to determine by name this third person now. If a name is put forward by the members of the committee and that person is absent, then the steering committee cannot operate because its quorum is three. Whereas if the motion suggested in the agenda is adopted, this third member may change over time, depending on availability. Usually, this third person is selected from among the members of the majority party in the Senate. To put it plainly, it would be a Liberal senator because they hold the majority of seats in the Senate. However, this is not a requirement but is the usual way to proceed. Where it states in the proposed motion that the third member is designated after the usual consultation, it is usually consultation between either the deputy chair or the chair — the member of the party with the greatest number of seats in the Senate — and the respective whip. This can be discussed and determined later.
The Chairman: This is a procedural motion now. Could I have a mover of that motion?
Senator Hubley: I so move.
The Chairman: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Watt: Opposed.
Ms. Lemay: The motion is carried on division.
The Chairman: We will proceed to a motion that the committee print its proceedings and that the chair be authorized to set the number to meet the demand. Could I have a mover?
Senator Campbell: I so move.
The Chairman: All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. The next item is a motion that, pursuant to rule 89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings and to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present. Could I have a mover?
Senator Watt: I so move.
The Chairman: All those in favour? Carried.
The next motion is that the committee adopt the draft first report regarding expenses in the previous session, prepared in accordance with rule 104.
The clerk will distribute a copy of this to all honourable senators. Senators have before them the first report on finances. Are there any questions? These are the expenses from the previous session.
Could I have a mover?
Senator Campbell: I so move.
The Chairman: Are there questions or comments? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next motion is that the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign research staff to the committee; that the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bills, subject matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it; that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and that the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports. Could I have a mover?
Senator Dyck: I so move.
The Chairman: Are there questions or comments? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. We have had the excellent services of Ms. Lisa Patterson and Ms. Mary Hurley, who have been with the committee for a considerable time. Many members of the committee believe that they should be running the show because they contribute so much to it. I am sure they will continue their excellent work.
The next motion is that, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act and section 7, chapter 306 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee; and that, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act and section 8, chapter 306 of the Senate Administrative Rules, the authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair and the clerk of the committee.
Are there questions or comments? Could I have a motion to that effect?
Senator Zimmer: I so move.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next motion is that the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
Could I have a mover?
Senator Segal: I so move.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next motion is that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be authorized to determine whether any member of the committee is on official business for the purpose of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators attendance policy published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and to consider any member of the committee to be on official business if that member is attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee or making a presentation related to the work of the committee.
Could I have a mover?
Senator Segal: I so move.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next motion is that, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application; but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be an exceptional circumstance.
Could I have a mover?
Senator Peterson: I so move.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next motion is that the chair be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings; and that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be empowered to allow such coverage at its discretion.
Could I have a mover?
Senator Hubley: I so move.
The Chairman: Are there questions or comments? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The next motion is that documents be distributed to the members and the staff of this committee via electronic mail whenever possible.
Could I have a mover?
Senator Dyck: I so move.
The Chairman: Are there questions or comments? All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The Chairman: Senators, as a matter of information, the committee's allocated time slots are 9:30-11:30 a.m. on Tuesdays and 6:15-8 p.m. on Wednesdays for its meetings in this room.
Senator Watt: Perhaps now is a good time to discuss past studies undertaken by this committee under the previous government. The study on forging relations should be brought to the table for discussion and should be accompanied by the other two studies, on RCAP and the Penner report, which bear similarities. We spent substantial amounts of money on those studies so we should re-examine them to determine needs for implementation. Are members in agreement?
The Chairman: I agree that the committee should look at this. We will strike a steering committee to determine how we should proceed. The economic development study undertaken under the former chairmanship of Senator Sibbeston should go forward. I will have to consult with my caucus on this, and Senator Sibbeston should do the same, if he has not done so. I wish to assure senators of one thing: The study went well, but with the dissolution of Parliament and the call of an election, it was unfortunately suspended. The study was consistent with work done by other institutions, such as Harvard University in the U.S., on the effects of economic development and self-government on various Aboriginal nations across the country.
I take the senator's suggestion to look at this seriously and the deputy chair and I will determine how to incorporate this into the committee's upcoming studies. First, I would like to know how the committee will proceed with the study on economic development that was initiated under the previous government. I hope that we have the support of all members of the committee on that.
Are there other comments? I do not want to be presumptuous, so the deputy chair and I will discuss this with our respective caucuses, followed by discussion with the entire committee.
Senator Hubley: One or two of us have sat on the committee before but there has been a lapse because of the dissolution of Parliament. Therefore, is there a way in which members can be brought up to speed on the committee's findings to date? Is a report on that available?
The Chairman: At the next meeting, we will have a paper prepared by Ms. Lisa Patterson, a researcher from the Library of Parliament, that will bring senators up to speed on such information. However, the respective caucuses must be consulted before a final decision can be made so that we have a much better chance of continuing what was initiated under the previous government. For those who have not sat on the committee before, be assured that it is not a lengthy document, but rather it is precise and concise about what has taken place.
Is there other business?
Senator Dyck: You will have to pardon my ignorance of what has transpired in the past, but because I do not belong to either caucus, perhaps I could ask senators to think about the subject matter of the report Stolen Sisters in respect of violence against Aboriginal women for a study to be undertaken by the committee in the future, if it has not been done before.
The Chairman: If I recall, there was some work done on that issue by this committee previously.
Senator Dyck: The Status of Women has done work on paternity issues with respect to Bill C-31. I know they have other reports. Although Status of Women may have done it, I am wondering whether it is something we should consider.
The Chairman: Senator Chalifoux's study touched on it, but I do not think it focused on that. It was more on urban aboriginal issues and youth. It touched on it to a degree, but there has not been a clear focus on that particular issue. It is something that we can discuss as we go forward.
However, honourable senators, we are in a minority government situation, as we were the last time, and we should focus on what we have started and get through the study initiated under the leadership of Senator Sibbeston. I am not taking away from what Senator Dyck has said, and it could be something to entertain at a later date.
Senator Watt: I am sure that you do not mean to say that whatever we decide to do will have to be cleared with the leadership or the caucus. When you mentioned ``consult with the caucus,'' I got worried.
The Chairman: I would like to clarify that. We need a budget to travel, and I want to get that cleared.
Senator Watt: If it is only for that, it is not that much of a worry. Whether or not we are discussing certain issues, the committee is a committee by itself. We do not have to consult with anyone, other than the Senate as a whole, when have to get clearance from time to time. If we will be asked to consult with our leadership before we do anything, it would be unusual to me. I thought I should raise that.
The Chairman: We control our own destiny within reason, but we do have to seek funding to travel, and that extends outside the purview of this committee to the entire Senate. I am more concerned about carrying on with what we set up, and we have to renew whatever we had in place before the dissolution of Parliament. That is all I am referring to.
I am not saying we will be influenced from the outside as to what we study. I want to make certain we have everyone onside so we can carry on financially as well.
Senator Campbell: Would it be possible to get copies of these reports? I would be interested in reading them, and also the report mentioned by Senator Dyck. I would like to read all of them.
The Chairman: It is public information.
Senator Campbell: I do not have them, and it would be helpful. Summaries are good.
Senator Gill: Many subjects should be discussed here. Most of them concern the Aboriginal people, for example, women, violence towards women, children, abuse and most of the things going on both on and off reserve.
However, I have been here for quite a number of years and we have been studying many things, but there is never a follow-up. We never know if something is done or not. We are here with a great deal of experience, but I do not see too many results. I do not require too much, just some results for the people. I would like to know if we are successful or getting some results. I would like to see discussion that brings us to results. I know that we are only a committee of the Senate, but it is important.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, if we could do something that yielded results, as small as they may be —
The Chairman: I understand exactly what you mean. That is why I would like to focus on a single topic.
[English]
Senator Segal: As a new member of the committee, I want to associate myself with Senator Gill's proposition. Aboriginal leadership have been telling us now for 25 years that the federal government, under any administration, has steadfastly refused to move ahead on land claim settlements. In many circumstances, when Aboriginal groups have come to a conclusion, taken it back to their own leadership for discussion and caucused amongst tribal elders, they come back to the federal table to find all the negotiators have changed. Then it starts all over again.
We have also had Aboriginal leaders tell us that their generation is being replaced by another that might not have the same commitment to the endless negotiating process and might not be as overburdened with patience. We do not have to look far in the new cycle to see examples of that.
Perhaps you and your colleagues on the steering committee can think of ways to bring federal officials before us to hold them accountable, take some of the reports and the advice that have been prepared in the past by this distinguished committee and see what they have moved on or not, and also to get an update on the land claims process in a fashion that focuses public and government interest on moving ahead on some of these agendas before we see more outbreaks that produce unhappiness, sadness and polarization. I understand B.C. is a particular problem. While as a Senate committee we have to be realistic about our power and authority, on the other hand, we may have a freedom to raise aspects that others in more partisan places do not have. Since I understand the spirit of the committee to have been profoundly non-partisan in the past, if your colleagues on the steering committee could reflect on how we might do that, from my perspective I would be grateful.
Senator Campbell: I am thinking of the reports that are put out by the Defence and Security Committee, where they actually have a yearly running report of what has been recommended, what has been acted upon and what has not and why. When I speak to people in British Columbia, I keep hearing that all kinds of reports come out with tremendous recommendations that no one follows. It comes out, everyone wrings their hands, there is a great hue and cry, and then it drops off the face of the earth and no one is responsible for it. As Senator Segal said, we do have freedom that others do not have, and this committee is a great example of acting in a non-partisan way for the betterment of the people we are here to represent, which is the Aboriginal community. Could we not take a look at that model, as to what has been put out in reports and what recommendations were followed?
As for those that have not been followed, I am not suggesting that we tilt at windmills. If they will never go through, they will never go through; but we should note that and keep it running. We do not know where we are. There are all these reports that I want to read, and I want to know what is happening with those. Maybe we should be looking at that.
I am not suggesting that we do not go forward with the economic study that we are working on. That is important. However, we should also be able to keep a scorecard, for want of a better word.
The Chairman: Senator Segal, Senator Campbell, Senator Watt and Senator Gill have hit the nail on the head.
Traditionally, for some reason, we have not been able to get our message out as forcefully as we should. Lord only knows why that is. I have sat on this committee for a number of years. You are asking us to look at our communication strategy as a steering committee, and we should do that more effectively.
As mentioned, there are land claim discussions and specific claims that have not been settled. Some of these issues have been festering out there for years, and they are leading to the frustrations that we are experiencing; for example, what we see today in Caledonia, Ontario. The inaction by the department is reflected right across the country. There has been a lot of discussion regarding the department itself, as to whether it services the constituency it was established to serve.
If we are to work strategically and focus, we should review our communication strategy and become more active in ensuring that our message gets out. It is important that people are aware of the studies we are participating in, and hopefully it will encourage government right across the country to move more quickly on these issues.
Senator Gill: I think we are privileged with regard to Indian claims because the actual Minister of Indian Affairs had been a commissioner for some years; he knows the score. Maybe these issues should be approached differently this time so we see some results.
The Chairman: Senator Gill has worked with the present minister in some of these areas.
Senator Sibbeston: I wonder if there is merit in talking about our plans and the work we may become involved in. There is a little uncertainty in that regard. There will be a stretch of time in June when the Senate will be in session so the committee can do its work.
I think there is some merit in looking at what work we are likely to have before us. Is there any legislation that is likely to come from the House that our committee would be dealing with? Let us look generally at what our committee can do.
There is a study we began previously dealing with the issue of Aboriginal people's involvement in business and industrial development, and why some people succeed and others do not. That study has been ongoing. The task involves going out to various regions of the country. We have been to Alberta and British Columbia, but we need to go to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and eastward.
Other members have raised topics to be dealt with. In my opinion, our committee will be germane if we deal with issues that are current, controversial and relevant today. There are a number of ongoing issues: the residential school issue, treaty and land claims process, and Caledonia more recently. If we deal with and focus on issues that are current and controversial and add to those discussions, then we will be taken seriously.
Let us talk about what our committee could do in the ensuing couple of months.
The Chairman: Does anyone else have any comments?
Senator Watt: My experience over the last slightly over 20 years, quite a long time, has been fun. Being part of committees, you tend to ask yourself the questions: What am I here for? What am I accomplishing here? Where do the matters that are important to me end up? Where does the buck stop? How do matters get elevated to a more important level where decisions must be made?
I have not had a good experience or been overjoyed regarding the things we do. After our hard work is done, it could be four to six months or longer before something happens. That is when we ask ourselves the questions: What did I accomplish here? Where does this go? When will it make a life different?
It has a lot to do with the way motions are agreed to in the Senate as a whole. Sometimes, no real discussion takes place. The motion is presented, along with a budget, and it is accepted. Then the committee is asked to get together to make a decision, and the power is in your hands.
When you complete your work, where does it go? It ends up on the shelf collecting dust, never to be picked up again.
I know for a fact that a certain small proportion of work carried out by committees has been implemented, but we have no way of knowing how much. Is there a way to try to improve ourselves and have a proper network in place to assess our work?
In my opinion, the system does not work that way. I do not know about the other senators, but I have not experienced it. I think we should be asking ourselves that question internally. Are we happy with the tools that have been made available to us? What is missing? I leave that with you.
Senator Dyck: All comments this morning have been most helpful to me as a new member of the committee.
In my work as a professor, I have written many papers. They get published, and you wonder what on earth they actually do. One of the reasons I accepted being appointed as a senator was that I wanted to make a difference, and this is what was brought up by my colleagues here. As senators, particularly on this committee, we all want to make a difference in the lives of individual people. The task is to figure out how to take up an issue and not let it just sit on the shelf.
One of the recommendations — I think Senator St. Germain is right — was the follow-up to a report and finding the strategic partners that you send it to, with a directive.
The reason I brought up the topic of missing Aboriginal women this morning is that perhaps that is an area where we could have a profound impact if we found the right partners, took it back to the communities, released it and brought the women, the community and the police together.
The Chairman: Colleagues, I hear you loud and clear. Being from British Columbia, I have looked at the process that has been adopted on the land claim settlements, and it is horrific. It has been 12, 15 and 20 years in the making.
We have the economic study before us. As Senators Campbell, Segal and Watt have pointed out we have the issues of land claim settlements and treaty land entitlements. These deal with lands that were taken away from our native peoples. There is one situation in Manitoba on which they have been working for 10 years and it is still not resolved. Treaty lands were taken from them unjustly and they were given certain funds for the lands they lost. They have now bought land and they want to include it in their reserve lands. The process is horrific in the way it gets bogged down. There are specific claims, which involve another cumbersome process.
As Senator Dyck points out, there is the issue of violence against women. How many women did we lose in Vancouver, the majority of whom were Aboriginal women? That trial is taking place at the present time in Vancouver.
Senator Dyck mentioned linkages. In this committee's reports we generally do not have linkages to the people who are impacted. We are not getting the mileage for the good work being done by this committee. Unless we get out there, become visible, take a stand and are endorsed by the groups that are impacted, I do not think we will ever really be able to show the work being done by this committee.
If we do one thing, this is on what we should focus. Regardless of what work we do, we should ensure that it is made public and not just shelved here in Ottawa.
As much as possible, this will be a non-partisan study. Our goal is to provide results to the Aboriginal community.
I am prepared to sit down with any of you to discuss further how we can create more of an impact in delivering results to the constituency we are trying to serve.
Senator Gill: There is one important aspect of Aboriginal people that needs to be addressed. When we want to go somewhere we need a vehicle to get us there. At the moment, we do not have such a vehicle. I have been chief on my reserve for many years. We do not have the tools we need to solve our problems, such as those concerning kids. I have mentioned already that on many reserves three out of four kids are taken out of their families because they are not able to look after them. There is a lot of violence against women.
We do not have the tools or institutions to deal with this. Only the band councils can do that. They are the sole institutions through which you can go. The result sometimes is that there is no result because they do not have the tools or the institutions either. They are just submerged in their day-to-day activities. It is too much for them. They do not have what they need.
We must look at giving the tools to the people to solve their own problems. Thus far, people have tried to do many things. They try to work on Indian land claims and all kinds of other things. We know what the results will be. I have been on my reserve every weekend. There is still a lot of drug and alcohol use, and many kids are on the street. It is a mess still, and I am not on the worst one. There are others worse than mine.
We need institutions at more than one level. We have to combine our resources at different levels to be able to cope with our world. We do not have that ability. It still depends on the Minister of Indian Affairs. Even our national institution, the AFN, is just lobbying. They are not a legally constituted institution; they are just a pressure group. We have to work on that.
We have to have vehicles to take us where we want to go. It is important. I have done the same things over the years and it is terrible. Lots of money has been invested and there are no results.
Senator Sibbeston: I certainly want to see the committee begin its work as soon as possible. What is the procedure with respect to getting a mandate and a budget? Will there be an overall strategy from the leaders as to what the procedure will be? I am interested in getting our mandate as quickly as possible so that we can continue the study we started. What do we need to do to get those things in place?
The Chairman: We have to go to the Senate to obtain a reference. We then have to go to the Internal Economy Committee to obtain our funding.
Senator Sibbeston: Is that something that will take a number of weeks?
The Chairman: I hope not, no.
Senator Sibbeston: If senators have ideas about what they would like the committee to consider, they can put those forward now or put them down on paper and we could discuss them at another meeting, perhaps even tomorrow. In that way, we can hear all the ideas and all the subjects in which senators are interested. That would provide us with a work plan. After that, we can decide what our committee will be doing.
As early as possible I would like the committee to meet with the Minister of Indian Affairs, Jim Prentice, so that he can answer some questions about which there is some uncertainty. I refer to the Kelowna agreement, the residential school issue and the ongoing land claims processes throughout the country. It would be useful to hear from the minister. He can give us an idea of his views and state where he is on a range of issues in which I think members of the committee would be interested.
That is the kind of thing we need to do. Since there is no legislation coming from the House of Commons, our committee will be at a loss as to what to do. If we do not get going on our study quickly, there will be a period in which we are not doing anything. During that period, why do we not crystallize areas in which we are interested? After that, perhaps the minister could appear before our committee.
The Chairman: I can certainly request the minister to appear. If time permits, knowing Jim Prentice the way I do, I know that he would have no hesitation in appearing before us. I am sure he will seek the wisdom and counsel of this group. He recognizes there is a lot of experience around this table that he could utilize.
Senator Gill put it best. He knows the man. He knows what he has done. That is an excellent suggestion.
I had not planned to have a meeting tomorrow as a result of that, Senator Sibbeston, but we will definitely go at it immediately, next Tuesday and Wednesday, if it is the wish of the committee.
We should possibly consider a steering committee meeting tomorrow morning, if that would work out, so that we could give a certain amount of direction. We have heard from the senators as to what their concerns are. Now it will be up to us as a steering committee to come back with recommendations and further discussion on where this committee should go and how it should communicate its messages as a result of the work that it is doing.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Chairman, I think we need to formalize things a little more. It is more than just having expressed our ideas. I think we can even go beyond that. If people are interested in having a certain study done or have certain subjects they want dealt with, let us hear it concretely. Let us have them put down on paper what they want done and have it available for our next meeting.
I am concerned that there might be a bit of a lull in our work, there being no legislation. I do not know how many weeks it will be before we have the mandate and the budget approved for our study to continue. I am afraid it could be a month.
The Chairman: Maybe I will ask the clerk here. She has experience in that area.
Can you answer the question of Senator Sibbeston, how long this process should take as far as the continuation of the study and getting the necessary ratifications?
Ms. Lemay: The first step is for this committee to decide whether or not it will continue with the study. I assume that this decision will be made at our next meeting, where we will talk about future business of the committee. However, we are having a beneficial discussion here because other ideas are being bounced around; but I think that the decisions about what the committee will want to ask the Senate to do will take place at the next meeting. Further to your suggestion about having the minister appear before this committee, nothing prevents you, Senator St. Germain, or any senator, from moving a motion this afternoon in the Senate asking permission for this committee to ask the minister to appear before it, and it will be our first order of reference. A committee can have one, two, five; the Banking Committee had 11 orders of reference in the last session. This could be a first step for this afternoon or for the next few weeks. If it is decided by this committee at the next meeting that we will go on with the economic development study, then it has to go before the Senate, which will approve or amend or not approve this order of reference. If our meeting is Tuesday, it can be as early as next Wednesday. Then we have to prepare a budget according to our work plan. What do we want to do within this study? Do we take it from where we left off? There were still two suggested trips and more witnesses to be heard. This can be taken from where we left off or we can change the plans slightly or totally. It is a new order of reference.
As for the budget approval by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, I have no clue as to when the committee will meet and look at the committee's budget. I do not have that information. Maybe I will have more information next week.
The Chairman: I can assure you, Senator Sibbeston, I sense the urgency in your message, and we will not procrastinate. I think the fact we do not have any legislation coming through will enhance our possibilities of doing more work on the studies. Possibly we can focus on another study, either Senator Dyck's suggestion or Senator Segal's suggestion on land claims.
I would like to see the committee become active in an area where we can be seen as working for the constituency and trying to accelerate the process. It is the process that is bogged down and is really hurting our Aboriginal peoples, whether it is land claims or dealing with the issues that Senator Gill points out. A total evaluation of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must be done. These are some of the areas we can work in.
I have spoken to Chief David General of the Six Nations. He is part of the administrative group, and the people who are protesting are part of the traditional group.
I think we can become involved with these issues in a positive manner to really make the Senate known, more effective in the eyes of people, and possibly provide the results that we all wish for our Aboriginal people.
Senator Peterson: Mr. Chairman, many issues have been discussed here and they are all important. Being a new member, my question would be, what capacity do we have to do all of this? Normally, at the start of a new session, do we develop a work plan and prioritize the items we want to deal with in an orderly fashion so we are not bouncing all over the map? Before we have the minister here, we should have our game plan together.
The Chairman: Absolutely. There is no question. It is an absolute necessity that we know where we are going before we have him here, so that questions that focus basically on our work plan can be directed to him. It would not be restrictive in any way, but it is an absolute necessity, I believe, that we have a definitive work plan.
Senator Watt: Thinking along the same line as Senator Peterson, I think that is important because we never had an opportunity to have internal discussions amongst ourselves to look at the overall picture of what could be done. I, for example, have a priority in mind that I wanted to undertake this coming year, which will also be expanding into the following year. That is the high costs of transportation and of living. People are having a hard time making ends meet where I come from. That will be my priority.
I am not sure whether I will put it through this committee or whether I will try to encourage the Senate as a whole to set up a special committee to undertake to examine this issue. At this time, we are overtaxed in Nunavut. We are the biggest taxpayers in Canada. I have to deal with that starting this year, and it will be expanding into the second year. I am even looking at the possibility of getting a tax-free zone to build some incentive for investors to look at the North, rather than saying, ``Here is the money; here is a handout.'' If the money that is handed out by the government is not a sufficient amount for a return, it is money down the toilet. It will never come back. We have to start looking at things very differently. The high cost of living will be my priority. I am not sure whether I will put it through this committee or whether I will encourage the Senate as a whole to set up a special committee. I do not know yet, but I want you to know my priority.
Dealing with the question of economics that the committee has undertaken before, I support the concept, but not necessarily fully, because I feel that there is a certain ingredient of economics that is not in there. Is it economically feasible? Are you asking the people before you gamble on whether you will succeed or not? Economic feasibility affects it. Whether we are overburdened by taxes and things of that nature will have to be looked at. That is not part of the study, as far as I am concerned. We might want to have a general discussion to expand that a little.
Senator Segal: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me from the advice offered by the clerk that the steering committee will be beginning the process of pulling together, as Senator Sibbeston has suggested, the thoughts addressed here into perhaps a draft order of reference, which we might consider at our next meeting so as to move the agenda ahead. I certainly am very comfortable with continuing the work on the economic issue. Time has been invested; it is important that the study be finished. Other comments I have made I will leave stand.
Let me leave one idea on the table for the committee to reflect upon. It strikes me that if we are trying to engage in a debate that will focus people's minds on what is not happening, we should make it into an ad factum debate and discussion, an exposure and educational process, as opposed to an ad hominem debate relative to this or that public servant.
We might want to put into our order of reference at some point the consideration of the abolition of the department and the distribution of those funds out of the self-governing provisions of the Constitution to Aboriginals themselves to spend as they deem appropriate. This committee would not necessarily be of the same mind on that issue — we might have different views — but that would focus people's attention and it would allow us to put the discussion in another, constructive way, which is, if the abolition option makes no sense because so much good work is being done, can we see the evidence, as Senator Gill has referenced? Can we see the evidence of the good work? Can we see the evidence in terms of outcomes, in terms of quality of life, greater freedom of choice for Aboriginals? I suspect that this would at least serve notice that this committee was intense and serious in wanting to get to the core and to use all the work that has been done in the past by honourable senators to try to produce some kind of return.
I leave that to the steering committee to reflect on in due course.
The Chairman: That is an excellent observation. In our study we spoke to Chief Clarence Louis of the Osoyoos tribe, who has young people who will not work and he is trying to create a work-encouragement atmosphere for them. DIAND interferes and gives them welfare money, which is counterproductive to his trying to gainfully employ these people. He said this right at the hearing. It is totally frustrating. He said something else about a tree on his reserve. He wanted to cut a tree down. It was the most horrific nightmare he ever had to deal with. The Osoyoos band is a truly successful Aboriginal band.
This has been a good discussion. Are there any other comments?
Senator Sibbeston: I think we need to have people write things down. With all due respect, I have to say, while I understand what you are talking about to a certain extent, I think you need to put it on paper so we do not miss the gist, the extent to which you would be interested. I certainly would invite members of our committee to put on paper their concerns and areas that they want to have our committee deal with, and bring it forth either as soon as possible or at the next meeting, so that we can have it before us in a tangible way; otherwise we may miss the essence of your concerns.
The Chairman: Senator Segal, Senator Dyck, Senator Watt and Senator Gill, if you would be so inclined, produce a one-pager, nothing complex, and send it to the clerk of the committee. She will coordinate it and we will distribute it.
Senator Watt: At the next meeting?
The Chairman: Yes, at the next meeting.
Senator Watt: If that is the case, by all means, we will do that.
Senator Gill: I think it is a good idea, but we have to have an exchange on that. It is not the business of one person. I think we have to go round and see if people are interested in discussing those subjects. Otherwise, you will be alone to discuss your own subject. It is okay to put that on paper.
The Chairman: We maybe should think of doing something creative once in a while, just having a sit-down outside of the committee and a chit-chat up in room 601 or something. It becomes so structured that it becomes self-defeating, whereas if we just sat down and had a good conversation, whether it be on Senator Segal's idea or Senator Watt's idea or whatever, we could get together and focus on it. I do not like shotgunning. I like to rifle something. If you shotgun, you just do not have the same effect.
We have the economic study and we should maybe take up one other subject. Maybe it should be questioning whether DIAND should continue to exist. Many of the issues that have been brought up by Senator Watt and Senator Gill, who have had personal experiences, are reflected in the fact that the department is not serving the constituency that it was established to serve.
I would urge all members to take the time to do a one-pager and get it to the clerk of the committee. We will make sure that it is distributed.
It is your committee. We are guided by you. Senator Sibbeston and I, and whoever the third member is, will be guided by you.
Senator Watt: That is next Tuesday then.
The Chairman: Yes.
Ms. Lemay: Focus on the one-pager by the end of this week so we can distribute it.
The Chairman: Could you have the one-pager done this week, if at all possible, please?
Senator Watt: If we cannot fit it all on one page, can we make it two pages?
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: Congratulations. I am not a member of the committee.
[English]
If I can make a concrete suggestion, I would appreciate being included in those to receive it. This page that people send to our distinguished clerk could be redistributed to members of the committee prior to your meeting, so that then they will be ahead and know what everyone is thinking. It is easy to reproduce and to send by Monday of next week.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We intend to do that. We will do it.
[English]
Are there any other questions or comments? If there are none, do I have a motion to adjourn?
Senator Zimmer: We have talked about our authority and what we can do to examine the studies after we have tabled them. I presume we have other authorities to be able to do that. I am not sure we have ever exercised that authority or power. Could we examine that area to find out what else we can do to ensure those studies are acted upon? Where does our authority start and stop? Maybe we can come back to open discussion. How far can we go to ensure that those studies are acted upon? I do not know where our authority starts and stops. It would be helpful to have that, to be able to say we would like to do certain things, but how far can we go and what can we do to make sure they are enacted?
Senator Campbell: If we prepare a report — and there are reports out there — certainly our powers have to extend to at least the point of saying what has been done. We may not have any way of forcing them but we certainly must have the ability to ask people: You received this; it has now been six months; what have you done?
I always worry about asking for permission, rather than just giving it to them. If they believe we do not have the power, let them challenge us rather than vice versa.
Senator Zimmer: I can clarify that. I want to go beyond that, not ask permission. Are we able to go beyond that and actually empower ourselves or empower others to act upon it? Can we go further than that? I am not asking permission. I am saying, what authority do we have to make them act upon it and not just table it?
Senator Segal: I defer to the clerk and any other officers in the room, but it would be my understanding that while we cannot make motions in the Senate about spending Her Majesty's money, nor can we make motions of confidence, there is nothing to stop us from making a motion, should we so choose, to reduce the minister and deputy minister's salary to a dollar pending their appearance before us to answer certain specific questions. I am not suggesting we do that, but I think it is within our frame of reference to decide to do so, which I think would get their attention. As the government members do not have a majority, it will be in the hands of the majority in the Senate to decide how they wish to dispose of that matter. I think in principle, we can get as engaged as we choose. Whether we want to go in that direction is for colleagues to decide in due course.
The Chairman: Senator Segal has always wanted to see me strung out.
Senator Gill: I was working with the Social Affairs Committee. I think the power that we have is the power that we give ourselves. That is what will happen there. For communication, for example, a press conference is possible for a Senate committee. Talking to the minister responsible is possible; trying to influence people is possible. These are the things we should do. You will see that with the coming report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on mental health. That is a big report, and the chairman and deputy chairman will make sure it is known to the public and to the people affected by those policies. These are the kinds of things we do. We should do the same for the Aboriginal people, too, the same way.
Senator Prud'homme: Ask Senator Kenny. He knows about it.
The Chairman: It is the court of public opinion. You have to build alliances, get out there with your message and do it effectively.
Honourable senators, if there are no other comments at this time, we will meet again next Tuesday.
The committee adjourned.