Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2014

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

On the strategic partnerships initiative I understand it's not just limited to energy programs or to the west coast. Could you give us some examples of progress that's being made in other areas of the country, perhaps in some other sectors?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I'm glad you raised the point because this is not just about the west coast. While much of the recent focus has been on building relationships with aboriginal groups to support energy development on the west coast, Canada is committed to advancing aboriginal participation in the broader Canadian resource economy. Whether it is mining development in Ontario or the territories, or energy development in eastern Canada or B.C., aboriginal Canadians face many of the same barriers that limit their full participation wherever we are in the country. These impediments include limited human and financial capacity, and lack of access to expertise and planning.

While the federal government has a number of economic, business, and skills development programs outside of the strategic partnerships initiative, but this one program enables. That is what I call the genius of the program. It is bringing together several departments that work in a coordinated fashion to support specific projects that lead to training, business involvement, and entrepreneurship development. This specific project is a whole-of-government approach to pursue this.

I had the privilege years ago of being in charge of the native economic development program under Bill McKnight. This was introduced by a very good minister here, your father by the way, Mr. Strahl, who introduced this in 2010.

SPI has supported up to 400 aboriginal communities and organizations in pursuing economic opportunities, developed over a hundred new partnerships, and leveraged nearly $100 million in additional funding from other sources. This program is working and will be helpful to first nations all across Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Minister.

Ms. Bennett, we'll turn to you now for the next questions.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Minister, for coming to committee. I think we're very disturbed that some of your colleagues have chosen not to come to committee for estimates. We're very grateful that you're here today, because that's really important to how this is supposed to work in terms of Parliament and government.

One of the things you didn't mention in your speech is the allocation of $44.8 million to “support the construction and maintenance of community infrastructure”. As you know, infrastructure is something that's hugely important from coast to coast to coast, but as I think you're aware, people are very concerned about what has looked like a shell game in terms of what is voted for and what it actually is spent on.

As you know, during the tribunal on the first nations caring society, the document “Cost Drivers and Pressures” was presented, and in this document, it showed that $505 million in infrastructure dollars had been reallocated to social and education programs, and then you end up with a shortfall in the social and education programs.

But what was said in your own internal documents is that this would be “putting pressure on an already strained infrastructure program”. So I guess I'm asking, Minister, how do you explain the repeated announcements of new temporary funding for things like first nations water and waste water action plans, while you are simultaneously pulling A-base funding out of infrastructure to plug other holes?

Although you're here today defending the estimates, I think there's a concern that coming here ends up misleading Canadians about what the money actually gets spent on. Here, we're supposed to be approving money for the purposes you've laid out in the supplementary estimates, and I guess I would also like to know this. How does this committee have any confidence that the money will actually be spent on what is voted on?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I guess what you are asking is whether the department should or should not reallocate in order to address needs, priorities, and pressures. When we look at the reallocation, in these estimates what we are asking for is for specific projects that will be executed. I've referred to biggest ask for infrastructure, which is in regard to the evacuees, to the rebuilding of these communities in Manitoba. These are big capital expenditures. Also, you have the research station in Cambridge Bay. These are the larger ones that are covered by this.

On the question you raise, the need for reallocations to other programs, which is what you've addressed, is forecasted prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The department—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

As you know, your own studies show the devastation in water and waste water and the billions that are required. It's hard to see the money pulled out, like half a billion pulled out, and then you ask for $44 million.... It's a pattern of robbing Peter to pay Paul for the last six years. We already know that education is underfunded, but taking money from infrastructure to pay for education when infrastructure is also underfunded seems hard to defend.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Well, what you have to understand, and what could console you, is that these infrastructure projects are ranked according to a transparent and open framework of establishing priority projects. The projects at the top are the most urgent or important in terms of health and safety. If you reallocate, that does not displace those ones at the top; it pushes into future years those at the bottom. The advantage of this is to be able to take advantage of that ability to reallocate in order to address those pressures, because I'm sure—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I think when you go out and speak to the first nations they feel that they were just about to get approved, and then some rule changes, and they ask them to do something else.

I would like to go on to the allocation of $6.3 million. You spoke many times in your remarks today about consultation, cooperation, and collaboration, but it looks like in the supplementary estimates (B) that you're asking for $6.3 million in contributions for the purpose of consultation policy development, taking it up to $8 million. On page 34 of the 2013-14 performance report your department lacked almost half of the $8 million of planned spending for consultation engagement last year.

You've only filled half of the planned 48 full-time employee equivalents—26 for consultation engagement last year—and we're hearing from coast to coast to coast that aboriginal communities are not being properly consulted on issues that have significant and direct impacts on their lives. I want to know how you can justify lapsing half of the consultation budget and using only half of the full-time equivalent staff allocations, while you're asking for this other money.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I think that the reduction in authorities that you have pointed to is primarily related to a new approach the government is taking to fund aboriginal representative organizations. This new approach ensures that projects being funded are better aligned with our shared priorities of education, economic development, community infrastructure, and other initiatives that promote greater self-sufficiency.

While the estimates show a reduction in planned authorities the expenditures in this program area vary depending on the nature of the projects proposed by aboriginal representative organizations and fit with departmental priorities.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Is it just cheaper, because the people we're hearing from don't feel that these are consultations? They go out and do an information session, say that they love it, and then whatever they've said at the meeting doesn't show up in any documents later on. That must be cheaper than consulting.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

There are sufficient resources to properly consult to—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

You have half the staff.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Bennett.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

—discharge our duty. With the DPR that you refer to showing FTEs as being 22 less than planned, this variance I'm informed is due to an overstatement by the department and the DPR for this subprogram. The correct number should be 26, and therefore, there's no variance between planned and actual. There's been no reduction in human resources in this programming and the consultation.

You seem to echo what I often hear whenever we do a consultation and I'll give you the example of the one we carried out in the Yukon: the five-year review under YESA. Some 72 of 76 recommendations were agreed to jointly by all parties and four were not. We hear that they were properly consulted for those that they agree with, but if they don't agree with the others they were not consulted.

Consultation doesn't mean that people have to agree. What we have to do is within the spirit of the duty to consult, which is laid out by the Supreme Court as whenever there is an activity that is contemplated that may affect, then you accommodate. So that's what we do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

The consultation wasn't on the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Minister, I'm sorry I'm going to have to cut in.

We're going to turn it to Mr. Genest-Jourdain. We've run out of time, Ms. Bennett, I do apologize.

Mr. Genest-Jourdain.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Minister, do you think the $28-million—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'm going to apologize, it's Mr. Clarke's turn.

Mr. Clarke, we'll turn to you.

Mr. Genest-Jourdain, we'll get back to you shortly.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I'm glad our Chair remembered the format.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for attending.

Minister, I'm seeing that $38.2 million has been set aside for the Arctic research station. Can you tell me how this money is going to be spent for research and development, and how it is going to be formatted?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Let me first say that this project has been a long time coming. In 2007, you will remember that in the Speech from the Throne, we committed to building a world-class Arctic research station that would be on the cutting edge of Arctic issues. Since then, we've been consulting with a wide variety of stakeholders and developing the science and technology programs. I was privileged this summer to be with the Prime Minister, in Cambridge Bay, for the official groundbreaking ceremony.

CHARS will have three principle purposes. First, it will advance the knowledge of the Canadian Arctic. Second will be the exercise of stewardship and sovereignty over Canada's northern territories, while strengthening our international leadership on Arctic issues and providing a focal leadership presence in the Canadian Arctic. Of the $38 million—that is, $32.2 million that is set aside in these estimates—$29 million in capital funds will support the construction and purchase of land for the station and $8.2 million will be for the operation and implementation of the science and technology program. This includes $1.7 million to the polar continental shelf program at Natural Resources Canada for the coordination of terrestrial field logistics, and a further $1 million for the delivery of the science and technology program grants and contributions.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Could I maybe get some follow-up on that?

Is there any participation from any other countries in this program?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

CHARS will be a world-class, year-round research facility, advancing cutting-edge Arctic science and technology. Once CHARS is operational, the research capacity-building and outreach activities will help northerners gain skills and experience in order to better participate in the labour force, whether it is in mining, energy, management of wildlife and natural resources, or health and life sciences.

With regard to the research that will be taking place, there will be this crosscutting with researchers from other countries, but also other institutions in Canada. Industry will also be invited to participate, and they will participate, in the development of new technologies that are geared to the reality of the north. If you talk about infrastructure, and we know that infrastructure is important for economic development in the north because of the harsh temperature and delicate environment, you need to develop technologies to ensure you preserve this for Canadians.

So, yes, other researchers from other countries will team up with Canadian researchers in the Arctic, along with the private sector, to make sure that we can pursue the objectives of the station.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Minister, you mentioned the $8.2 million from the supplementary estimates that will go towards the implementation of the CHARS science and technology program.

Could you elaborate on that, please?

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

The $8.2 million is for the implementation of the plan. The mandate, as I said earlier, is not only ambitious, but what is being aimed at here is establishing a new, innovative leader in Arctic science and technology.

Now, let me give you an example in terms of resource development. The plan, for example, has many facets, but let me address resource development. Companies operating in the north accept the obligation to monitor project impacts and they accept this as being a fair condition of development. However, both the Mining Association of Canada and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have identified better baseline data for regulatory approvals and management as critical for resource development in the north.

CHARS will work with industry and the many federal, territorial, and aboriginal organizations involved in monitoring wildlife, the environment, health, and socio-economic conditions of northern residents to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of monitoring in the north, while respecting individual mandates and responsibilities. Whether you talk about infrastructure development for strong and healthy communities, or the sovereignty issue, CHARS will work in all of those fields to attain the objectives of the plan.