Public Accounts Committee on June 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. LeBlanc, was the matter he was summoned to more important than appearing before this committee?

[Paul LeBlanc]

I'm afraid I have no further information, Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Let me say something, Mr. LeBlanc, and you can take this back to your deputy and you can take it back to the Clerk of the Privy Council. As you know, this department has been before the public accounts committee on numerous occasions over the last number of years, and a lot of the reports have been unsatisfactory. One of the main issues has been--and it's been very clear--that there's been absolutely no continuity in the role of deputy minister. We have a situation where Shirley Serafini was appointed deputy June 1, 1999. She lasted 23 or 24 months; she was replaced by Marc Lafrenière on June 11, 2001. He lasted 14 months. He was replaced by Alain Jolicoeur in August 2002. He lasted 16 months, then Mr. Horgan was appointed.

We had this discussion with Mr. Horgan: the importance of, as the Auditor General says, the sustained management attention. This was a recommendation from the committee on that specific report. That recommendation was followed by Mr. Justice Gomery in his report to the government. When we made the recommendation to the government, they responded that it was none of our business. I think it was report number 10--no, that's the wrong number.

Obviously the present government isn't paying much attention either, because about a week ago they replaced Mr. Horgan. Now we have this situation: we've asked the present deputy to be here, and he has said to us he's got a more important meeting.

I really find that offensive, and Mr. LeBlanc, you can take that message back to your superiors. Really, that is an affront to Parliament and to all Canadians. I'm sorry to speak in strong language, but that is my view.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was ready to listen to an argument that something happened--things happen, family stuff and personal matters--but to tell us that they've been called to another meeting, given the problems here.... And you're right, we've been around this before. With all the situations we have going on in this nation right now around first nations people--I don't live too far from Caledonia--we're all living through the stress of that, and we get this kind of thing?

I'm not prepared to move forward. I want the deputy minister here. I want some bloody commitments. This is getting ridiculous. And it's not just this meeting, we're going back a number of audits, where we've had follow-up audits where they've said that wasn't good enough. So that's how we got to this point. That's why this was a priority. There was only one thing bigger in the whole report, and that was the firearms issue.

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

Slowly, slowly--

You're going to kill the interpreter.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, I think they get the tenor.

Mr. Chair, I find this totally unacceptable. I'm glad you led with the comments you did, but I want to tell you, to my mind and I hope to the minds of others, I don't think we should have this meeting until that deputy is here.

At the end of the day, there are only two people you can hold accountable in a ministry: the minister and the deputy minister. There are two different processes. Today it's to bring in the deputy on an issue of this importance, with all the ongoing problems; and now we're told, oh, there's a meeting that's more important? I don't think so, and I'm not prepared to continue until we have somebody here who can be held accountable for what's going on in that ministry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, Mr. Williams.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have equal sentiments--perhaps not quite as vociferous as Mr. Christopherson, but the emotions are much the same. This government, as you know, has moved to entrench in legislation that deputy ministers are accountable before Parliament. When Bill C-2 passes, that is their legal obligation.

Therefore, I would move, Mr. Chair, that you write to the Clerk of the Privy Council explaining to him our dissatisfaction that a meeting with another bureaucrat is more important than coming before Parliament. Expecting and pointing out that Bill C-2 requires that deputy ministers be responsible before Parliament, we expect them to live up to that commitment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The clerk just pointed out that Mr. Wernick's office passed along that he has been summoned to meet with the minister in the Privy Council, although I don't think that makes any difference at all to what we're talking about here.

Mr. Williams has made a motion. Does he have unanimous consent to bring the motion forward?

Do you want to speak on the motion, Mr. Lemay?

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

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to start by telling the distinguished members of this committee who are seeing me for the first time that I am the spokesperson of the Bloc Québecois for Indian Affairs.

We met with the deputy-minister for the first time yesterday. He was with Mr. Prentice and he answered several questions. I share Mr. Kristofferson's remarks, although I do not share completely his aggressiveness. However, I might also become as aggressive as him in the future because everything is related, Mr. Chairman.

The Auditor General, Ms. Fraser, has produced an extremely good report which I hope she will talk about in the next few minutes. Yesterday, in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern development, we were able to put questions to the minister and to his deputy but he had not read the report. That is a problem.

I would have liked the deputy-minister to be here today because I have several questions to put to him. I understand that he was appointed only last week and that he is not yet aware over all the issues. That may be but I thought it would be important for him to be here this morning.

We should not necessarily postpone the meeting since I'm sure the Auditor General is extremely busy but I believe that the committee should meet again with the deputy-minister and the minister for them to answer our questions about the Auditor General's findings. There are some extremely important conclusions in this report and the department has been equivocating for more than four years. We're not talking about two weeks but four years. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lemay, I agree with you, and I'll bring that to the steering committee.

I think I'm following up with Mr. Christopherson's comments too. I don't think we should let the gentleman off the hook. We have to bring him back here to answer some questions.

Now, in fairness to him, he's only been appointed, but don't forget we had that same excuse the last time Mr. Horgan was here. He was kind of new and wasn't really familiar with the department. So it's quite a cycle they've got going.

Mr. Williams has made a motion. I sense there's unanimous consent to deal with the motion. Any further discussion?

[An hon. member]

Could he read the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Or repeat it.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

The motion is that the chair write to the Clerk of the Privy Council, pointing out that Bill C-2 requires that deputy ministers be accountable before Parliament and that there's no greater responsibility than to appear before Parliament. And we are rather incensed that a meeting with another bureaucrat, if that is the case, would take precedence over coming before Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Having heard the motion, all in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Again, I apologize for the delay, Madam Auditor.

I will turn the floor over to you for your opening remarks.

I thank you very much for being here.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

As a point of clarification, Mr. LeBlanc, you said you were in phone communication with the deputy minister. Would you be able to attempt to communicate with him, while we're going through the initial stages of this meeting, to find out whether or not in the second half of the meeting he will avail himself to the committee?

[Paul LeBlanc]

Chairman, I should be more precise.

I was in phone communication just before the beginning of this session with the office of the deputy minister, not with Mr. Wernick himself, and was advised that he had indeed been summoned by the Privy Council for a meeting—with whom exactly, I can't elaborate. Of course, we could see with the deputy's office if there's any chance of his joining the meeting before the conclusion today.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Could you please verify that and report back immediately?

[Paul LeBlanc]

Indeed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mrs. Fraser, the floor is yours.

[Sheila Fraser, Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We thank you for this opportunity to present the results of our audit on the management of programs for first nations, included in our status report.

As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Ronnie Campbell, assistant auditor general, and Glenn Wheeler, principal, who are responsible for this work.

Once a year, we prepare a report for Parliament called the status report. This report focuses on what the government has done to address recommendations made in a selection of previous performance audits, and assists parliamentarians in holding the government accountable for its stewardship of public funds.

Since 2000, I have issued several chapters on programs and services for first nations. We conducted this follow-up audit to provide a comprehensive assessment of the government's overall progress in responding to our previous audits, but also to identify reasons for progress on some recommendations and a lack of progress on others.

We followed up on seven audits, completed between 2000 and 2003, that examined housing on reserves, health care, comprehensive land claims, economic development, third party intervention, the food mail program, and reporting requirements for first nations. Federal organizations had agreed with most of our recommendations and had committed to taking action. Overall, we found that the federal government's progress has been unsatisfactory.

Today, I would like to focus on three issues that are important to the health and well-being of first nations people and that require particular attention. They are mould contamination in houses on reserves, monitoring of prescription drug use, and a review of the major entry points for the food mail program.

Problems with mould exist in many on-reserve houses, and mould contamination has been identified as a serious and growing health and safety problem.

ln our initial 2003 audit we noted that the three responsible organizations -- Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and Health Canada -- established a committee to address the problem. ln this audit, we found that despite the activities of the committee, no federal organization has taken responsibility for assessing the full extent of mould contamination and developing a strategy or action plan for addressing the problem.

Mr. Chairman, you may wish to ask the government to identify a lead organization to take responsibility for addressing the problem of mould in on-reserve houses, and to provide your Committee with an action plan and timetable, and then regular progress reports.

The second issue is prescription drugs. Through its non-insured health benefits program, Health Canada funds prescription drugs for first nations people and for Inuit. First nations are concerned about the misuse of prescription drugs, and the problem is magnified by significant differences in health status between first nations people and the rest of Canadians.

In audits as far back as 1997, we reported that the department was slow to intervene where potentially inappropriate use of prescription drugs was observed. In our 2000 audit we found that Health Canada had updated its review protocol for drug use to better identify and follow up on cases that suggested misuse of prescription drugs. This protocol involved following up with clients, physicians, pharmacists, and professional bodies and had some positive impact.

However, the department stopped this protocol because management was unsure of the appropriateness of gathering this information without either a legislative mandate that would explicitly allow for this type of analysis, or client consent that would grant permission to the department to analyze private health information. In 2001 departmental officials informed the public accounts committee that within the year they expected to resume this analysis for 70% of clients after it had received their consent. The department was able to obtain consent for only 25% of clients before stopping this effort in 2004. That same year we reported that the number of clients obtaining more than 50 prescriptions over a three-month period had almost tripled compared with what we found in our 2000 audit.

In this audit we found that after five and a half years Health Canada finally resumed its detailed analysis of prescription drug use, but it is unable to identify reductions in inappropriate use that are the result of its intervention. The audit also found that the department still has not sought legislation for its non-insured health benefits program. If consent has not already been obtained, the department's approach is to seek consent case by case, before informing health providers or pharmacists of concerns about possible misuse of prescription drugs.

Mr. Chair, you may wish to ask the department to provide your committee with a detailed report outlining its current approach to address this serious issue, and progress reports identifying reductions in inappropriate use that are the result of the department's intervention.

The federal government's food mail program subsidizes the costs of sending nutritious perishable food by air to Canada's North in an effort to increase the level of nutrition in the diets of northerners. ln 2002 we reported that 140 communities were eligible for this program in the three territories and in parts of northern Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.

Program users in these communities must arrange with wholesalers to send eligible food to Canada Post facilities at one of the 20 designated entry points. Canada Post then assumes responsibility for flying the perishable food to the community within 48 hours.

ln our 2002 audit we found that departmental officials, northern merchants, and consumers have suggested that access to more southerly entry points would have a positive impact on both the qua!ity and choice of food and on the time it takes to transport it. However, at that time, no systematic review had ever been done by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to assess the locations of entry points. We recommended that the Department undertake such a review to determine whether changing entry points would make the program more effective.

ln this audit, we report that still no comprehensive review has been done. Instead, the Department reviewed only one of the program's entry points and it has no immediate plans to review any others. Mr. Chairman, you may wish to ask the Department what actions it has planned.

Mr. Chairman, as part of this audit we identified seven factors that appear to have favoured the implementation of recommendations. Absence of these factors seems to have hindered their implementation and impeded significant change in the !ives of First Nations people.

We would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding these factors.

Mr. Chair, that concludes our opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Fraser.

Madam Gosselin, do you have any opening remarks or anything to add?

[Hélène Gosselin, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Health]

No, I don't have any opening remarks, but we're available to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I want to thank you for being here.

Mr. LeBlanc, from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is there anything you want to say?