Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 20th, 2007

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Do I still have some time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You're out of time.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

From the Liberal side, who would like to speak?

Madam Karetak-Lindell.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you for appearing before us. Of course, we were expecting the minister.

I want to get a clarification on what looks like a discrepancy to me. Looking at page 90 of the blue budget book, I see that the government states that it spends more than $9 billion each year for aboriginal people, yet you have figures of $6.3 billion in your estimates. There is about a $3 billion discrepancy there, so I would like to get a clarification on that, first of all.

Further to what Mr. Albrecht said, there seems to be a lot of funding being transferred to the Department of Indian Affairs from other areas. Frankly, that worries me, in that—and I have said this before—everything seems to be going under one department, leaving programs to be run by just one department. I figure the expertise would be with Industry Canada when it comes to running SchoolNet and Aboriginal Business Canada, in that we as aboriginal people are entitled to the same expertise as any other Canadians, no matter who we are. However, we seem to be getting ghettoized into one area, with the people taking care of us only dealing with Indian Affairs, and not as people who are entrepreneurs, not as people who need good health care, not as people who need to access to services, like every other Canadian in this country.

The other worry I have is that with all the funding being put into one department, we could become another statistic, in terms of x dollars per aboriginal person. The average Canadian will think the current Government of Canada is spending so many dollars on each aboriginal person in Canada and will not separate out the fact that, as people who live in this country, we are already entitled to universal health care. There should not be a dollar figure for us that is different from that of any other person here in Canada, yet because we're aboriginal persons, we get a dollar figure put on us per person, no matter where we live in this country and no matter that we're entitled to some of those dollars already as residents of this country. I am really uncomfortable that all this money is going to be put down later on as x number of dollars per each aboriginal Canadian without differentiation as to which of those are our entitlements already as people who live in this country.

To go back, could you explain to me the discrepancy between the $9 billion in this blue book and what you have in your speech, and the fact that by having everything put into one department I don't think we are going to get the level of service to which we are entitled.

This is especially from a minister who used to say before that the first thing his party would do is probably get rid of Indian Affairs because they didn't think it was a department that was serving the aboriginal people of Canada. Now they're putting more money into it instead of dismantling it—which is what I used to hear from the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance.

[Michael Wernick]

Thank you.

I noted four questions—and I'll see if I can move through these quickly, Mr. Chair. I noticed the look.

The difference between the two figures is pretty straightforward: it's the activity of other departments. Parliament gives Indian and Northern Affairs in the order of $6 billion. I think we'll end up this year at about $6.4 billion, something like that. The difference between that and the $9 billion is basically the money that Parliament gives to other departments, the largest chunk being the non-insured health benefits that flow through the Department of Health. That figure, if my note here is right, is about $1.8 billion. Human Resources and Skills Development has about $400 million, and they got some more yesterday for the aboriginal skills and employment partnership programs. The next biggest one is probably CMHC, for their housing programs. They spend somewhere in the order of $300 million a year for housing, which you can identify as aboriginal housing.

And it goes on. There's a whole bunch of other things, including Justice Canada, which got some more money yesterday, the Public Health Agency, Industry Canada, Canadian Heritage, and so on.

In order to help Parliament keep track of that, the Treasury Board Secretariat has kept a sort of inventory or framework. It's on the Treasury Board website, and we make reference to it in our reports to Parliament. That's the famous figure of $9.1 billion that you keep hearing. They're in the process of updating that to another fiscal year, and it'll probably end up being, I don't know, $9.2 billion or $9.3 billion. But that's the difference, basically; the $3 billion involves the other departments.

In terms of ghettoizing or, on the flip side, mainstreaming into other departments, that's a choice governments will have to make. It has gone back and forth over the years. There probably is a selfish reason not to expand too far—that is, there's only so much one minister or one poor deputy minister can keep an eye on. Plus there are efficiencies in having more specialized purposes.

I tend to agree with what I think you're saying, that if Health Canada is really good at health issues, and HRSD is really good at skills and employment and so on, we shouldn't try to replicate that in the department. But what I think we can do—and do, I assure you—is be an advocate for aboriginal issues and sensitivities.

I have people out there as antennae every day, attending interdepartmental meetings and working with other departments. If we see an opportunity to take an initiative or a program or a regulation that's in the works and make it work better for aboriginal peoples—by changing the design a little bit, or setting some resources away—then we go to bat for that time and time again. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don't. But I do agree that we have to do both. We have to have a strong centre of expertise and responsibility and we have to try to mainstream it into the roles of other departments.

In terms of how to count spending, I'm not sure there's a right or a wrong way to present it. You can get into debates about what is spending for aboriginal people or for first nations people. We can certainly account for a good piece of it, because it flows through our programs to first nations recipients. Those are the core numbers you tend to see bandied about. And they're significant resources when you take that $9 billion and divide it by the recipient population, but you're also quite right to say that first nations Canadians benefit from old age security or guaranteed income supplement or the fact that there's a national defence department or whatever. They're Canadian citizens as well. So you can get yourself into some attribution and methodology issues.

But to go back to where your colleague was, there is a special federal responsibility for first nations peoples and for aboriginal peoples in the general sense. We have subsection 91(24) responsibilities, we do have the Indian Act, we do have honour of the Crown responsibilities with regard to claims and settlements. So there is in fact a stream of money that Parliament provides specifically for first nations peoples, and I guess our job is to manage it and account for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

From the government side, anybody?

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you.

You gave a good answer to my question regarding accountability and governance.

Mr. Harrison, will your mandate deal more with internal department activities or will you, without overburdening communities with respect to the information requested, work to do follow-ups and implement measures to ensure that the bulk of the amounts transferred to communities is spent in accordance with the same accountability criteria that you must meet?

[Peter Harrison]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put this into context. First of all, the residential school issue concerns individuals. It all depends on the sufferings and experiences they endured in the residential schools.

We have the same minister as Mr. Wernick, but we have departmental status. Our goal is that payments, which are currently being made and will continue once our agreement with churches and aboriginal groups is implemented, be made to individuals.

We also recognize the fact that it might have an impact on communities. Once the agreement comes into force, we expect that close to $2 billion will be paid out. Perhaps I should explain that, because it is complex.

When the agreement comes into force, all individuals who were students in an aboriginal residential school—we are talking about first nations people, Métis and Inuit—will be able to apply for a payment. There will be a $10,000 payment for the first year spent in a school and $3,000 for each subsequent year. Amounts will vary from one individual to another. Individuals will apply to Service Canada, our department will analyze each individual case, and people will receive a cheque.

I have to say that we have many contacts with aboriginal groups: the Métis, Inuit and first nations. People are wondering what will happen once that money comes into the communities. Indeed, the amount I referred to could have a significant impact. As I had said, we are discussing that. A number of committees are dealing with the issue. As well, there will soon be a conference, in Winnipeg, and its theme will be the impact of that money in communities.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, many communities are located very far away from financial institutions. Individuals will receive cheques, and we are wondering what they will do with those cheques, given that there is no banking system in the remote communities. We are therefore discussing with banks and financial institutions to see how we can assist the individuals who will be receiving those payments.

I hope that answers your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Actually you only have 30 seconds, so I don't think you have enough time for a reasonable question on that.

Mr. Lévesque, go ahead, please.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

You are telling us that we will soon be needing aboriginal banks. Mr. Harrison, if I understood correctly, emergency transfers were supposed to be made to certain people. With regard to applications that have been made, do you have the numbers at hand showing how many applications were finalized and how many are yet to come?

I will start by asking all of my questions. I will give you time to consult. I also have one for Mr. Wernick.

Mr. Wernick, what kind of safety margin do you have to ensure that there will be a sufficient amount of money? Have you established a safety margin? If there is money left over at the end of the fiscal year, will you be able to carry it over to the next?

On another issue, let us look at the table at vote 45b, which deals with the program expenditures of the Indian Specific Claims Commission. Knowing that the commission lacks specialized counsel and that the time to process an application largely exceeds what could be considered a normal delay, despite the hard work by those mandated by the commission headed by the skilled and excellent Renée Dupuis, could you explain how the $20 million in additional assistance would help speed up the processing of applications? We know well that there is a shortage of experts particularly, ie, of specialized counsel.

We are in favour of the independent commission receiving additional funds, but we also want to make sure that the commission receives all the support necessary to carry out its work. I would like to get your views on that.

[Michael Wernick]

Could we begin with the residential schools?

[Peter Harrison]

Thank you for your question. This is really a very important matter, Mr. Chairman.

As I just mentioned, the common experience payment will come into effect once the agreement we have entered into with the churches and the first nations' groups has been approved. We are waiting for this agreement to be approved by the eighth judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice. There are some legal considerations at stake, but administratively speaking, we are expecting this payment to come into effect in the fall.

However, some older people are dying off and will not be able to get the payment if we are not vigilant enough. The government has said that individuals—we're talking about seniors—who were aged 65 or over on May 30, 2005, could apply to receive the payment sooner. We know that the minimum amount will be $10,000 per person who was at a residential school. The previous amount was $8,000. Some individuals have applied for this payment, and we have given it to them before the agreement came into effect.

I cannot give you the figures I received yesterday, because we are tracking the situation on a day-to-day basis. An amount of $82,700,000 has been distributed to 10,338 individuals.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Could you repeat that please?

[Peter Harrison]

Our figures yesterday showed that we have paid $8,000 to 10,338 individuals, for a total of $82,700, 000.

Mr. Chairman, the total number of people who have applied for payment is 13,447. Our demographic analysis anticipated that the number of applicants would be 13,500.

I mentioned that, because in the future, there will be questions asked about our forecasting models. I think we have gained some very important experience in this regard.

You will want to know about the other applications as well. Over 200 applications are being processed and others are not yet complete. We are working directly with the people involved to help them fill in their application for early payment. In some cases, there is no proof that they were at residential schools. This must be proven by asking questions and by asking for documentation. There are also some individuals who were not 65 when they applied.

Those are the figures, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Is there anyone from the government side?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Wernick.

[Michael Wernick]

There were two other questions there, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to move very quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I'll allow that.

[Michael Wernick]

Thank you.

We can always follow them up later.

There may be two points I could make about the latitude we have.

First, according to the rules laid down by the act and by Treasury Board, if we have not spent all of our operational budget, we can transfer up to 5% of the total to the next fiscal year. That prevents overspending in March—the March madness that was referred to earlier. This gives management some responsibilities at this time of the year. In the context of claims and negotiations, the department is involved in 200 tables at the same time. Treasury Board is very generous in reallocating the funds: if we do not have a final legal agreement, we can transfer the amounts earmarked for these agreements and they carry over from one fiscal year to the next. Each time an agreement is reached, that is shown clearly in the public documents and the documents tabled in Parliament. I think that during the current fiscal year, we will carry forward close to $200 million into the next fiscal year. If we reach agreements, so much the better.

In terms of our latitude and sound management practices, I insist on mentioning the establishment of a chief financial officer position. We are really going to strengthen our internal management, have monthly financial statements and a three-month review to see where we are at and to determine the pressures on the resources available. Many resources are more or less allocated on April 1 because we have some legal obligations. There are some agreements and we manage the room we have for the rest of the year. It is quite tight for the rest of the fiscal year with the creation of a chief financial officer position, the introduction of a new internal financial management table, and so on.

As you may know, there is now a policy whereby all the departments must table their audited financial statements by 2009. We are quite well advanced in preparing all of these statements. I hope this will help us maximize the use of our resources, but I must admit that it is tight.

As regards the commission, it does have resources. As for the $20,000, this is probably some adjustment for Treasury Board. The commission has its allocation, and in the votes for the fiscal year beginning April 1, it will get $6.7 million more for its operations. I do not think that it will have a great deal of difficulty as regards the availability of lawyers, but I am prepared to take advice on this. I think, rather, that the problem will lie with the department, because we are the first line for evaluating claims. The commission is a sort of appeal body where people can challenge our decision not to negotiate. If we reject a claim, the commission is there to take a second look, to appeal our decision.

I think the best question for the committee has to do with the apparatus surrounding the claims. As you probably noticed in yesterday's budget, we are working hard to give the minister some options in order to change the whole process, including the option of having an independent tribunal or some other model. If we manage to reform the entire system, I imagine the commission will play a different role.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

We're going to go to the government side. I have a question here from the chair.

Mr. Wernick, you mentioned in your opening address that the department has actively supported the accountability work of the blue ribbon panel on grants and contributions and has been active on a number of fronts. Is the blue ribbon panel on grants and contributions just for the allocation of the grants or is it also for monitoring the compliance to program guidelines and best practices as far as execution of expenditures goes?

[Michael Wernick]

I may get in a little over my head here, Mr. Chairman, but the panel was created by the government—last spring, I think it was—to look at grants and contributions funding as a tool of public policy. There's a lot of grant contribution funding. We are probably one of the biggest providers of it at about $5.2 billion, but there are many other departments that rely on either grants or contribution agreements. It's a set of tools that were created through the Financial Administration Act quite a number of years ago.

What the government picked up—as I'm sure members from all sides have picked up—was that in tightening accountability for the use of those resources, particularly after the events at HRDC back in 2000 and so on, we had added as a system, with good intentions, a lot of oversight, a lot file checking, a lot more attestations, more process up front, more checking after the fact. For some recipients—small NGOs, community groups, and so on—we had made it almost impossible to do business with the Government of Canada, and this was the “web of rules” kind of language that was picked up.

So the committee, chaired by Mr. Clark and Mrs. Lankin—and I forget the third member who dropped out later—looked at the whole thing. Basically they said the government should rethink the entire tool kit. Sometimes grants are grants. Sometimes they should be forgivable and sometimes they should be repayable, and we should look at that in terms of measuring the tool to fit the job, if I can put it that way.

We see that as an immense opportunity, because as I say repeatedly, that's our main tool—a contribution agreement. When you have a contribution agreement, it's not an unconditional grant; it means you're providing x number of dollars for a purpose. That means you're going to have to assess whether the applicant is eligible, and you're going to have to measure what you did with the money. So you're going to create reporting with the contribution agreements.

Can we find a more efficient way to do that, and can we deal with some of the issues that plague first nations communities, for instance, having to deal with 10 or 15 government departments sometimes and reporting to each of them separately? Surely we can find a way to streamline that. That's the opportunity.

The President of the Treasury Board said, broad-brush, he endorses it, and broad-brush, there will be a new financial transfer payment policy in place by the end of this year. So we are certainly going to work very hard to persuade our colleagues at Treasury Board to find some instruments that work better for aboriginal recipients.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

So you're putting that all together in your role as the person who's going to oversee those dollars.

[Michael Wernick]

That's to try to change the tool kit. I guess my other role, which you alluded to, is to work with the tools I have. So to that extent, we still have to work with contribution agreements, and then we simply have to manage them, as Ms. Crowder said, to take out as much of the bureaucracy and make them as efficient a tool as possible

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Are there any further questions from any other members from the government side?

Madam Crowder.