Public Accounts Committee on June 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Well, if you said it before, there's no point in repeating it.

[Paul LeBlanc]

I would just say that it's a priority. We're going to enhance the strategy in the ways the Auditor General recommended. We're optimistic it will increase the favourable response to the challenge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Fitzpatrick is next, for five minutes.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I want to focus on page 146, on the points the Auditor General pointed out that she thought were connected to lack of performance. I want to quickly go over some of those key features.

One is lack of coordination. I feel that in all lines of life, if you've got good coordination and good planning, you save money and you get better results.

Another is lack of sustained management. That seems to me to address the issue of quality management, or the lack of it. Again, in life good management means saving money and getting better results.

There is also consulting with people before you do things. That again, it seems to me, saves money and gets better results.

Another point relates to having first nations people involved in the consultation and the delivery of the programs. Again, that sort of thing would save money and get better results.

Another is a solid, well-planned legislative framework for getting things done. A good plan to start with will save money and get better results.

I think what the Auditor General is describing here is an overall system that needs some real focus and direction. There's a lot of room for improvement here. The bottom line is that I don't read the issues being addressed here as issues that require big piles of money to be poured into the system. Mr. Drucker and Mr. Deming, probably the foremost experts on management and administration who ever lived, said that pouring more money into a bad system is not going to get better results. I think we have a lot of things here that aren't really monetary issues, but they should be addressed.

I'm just wondering, Madam Fraser, am I wrong on this? Are these monetary issues that you pointed out here, or are they just poor management and poor administration, or something akin to that?

[Sheila Fraser]

I agree with the member that money isn't the only solution to issues. One common theme that has come up in many of the audits is the whole definition of the federal role in some of these programs, and the responsibilities. Even today we talked about whether one department has clear responsibility for addressing the question of mould, and an action plan to go with that. That's why we brought up the whole question of legislative base, so that it helps to clarify what the respective roles and responsibilities are.

That said, we do note in the report that from 1999 to 2004, the first nations population increased by slightly over 11%, and yet the funding has increased by only 1.6%.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

But you would agree with me that if the system is really quite faulty and they're not going to fix it, money is not going to be the resolution to the matter in itself.

[Sheila Fraser]

Money is not the only solution.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you very much.

The other thing I want to address is the housing issue. I can't think of people who are more directed by other people than first nations people, especially on the reserves. They don't have things that everybody else takes for granted--freedom of choice to do things in life, ownership of property, and so on. I can't help but think this is some sort of Marxist paradise. I think of what Churchill said about socialism, that socialism was the equal sharing of misery. These folks actually live in a 100% state-operated arrangement.

On the housing matter and the question of mould in the homes on the reserves, is there any move afoot to reform things with the bands to give people on those reserves some ownership rights on their own homes so they can have the pride of having some of their own property? Maybe some of these things that we're dealing with here would be addressed by the people who occupy the homes.

Could you respond to that, sir?

[Paul LeBlanc]

Mr. Chairman, that is indeed an important issue, and it's being addressed in a few key ways. On one level, a lot of this grows out of the antiquated Indian Act, of course, that doesn't deal with modern land tenure issues, land management issues, and ownership issues. There have been legislative initiatives of late that do indeed allow communities to facilitate home ownership and the raising of capital, which is necessary for home ownership and is also usually the cornerstone of any subsequent entrepreneurship exercised by individuals. That's one level.

The department has modified significant portions of its housing investment funding to provide investment where individuals and bands are able to raise commercial money--indeed, 50% to 75%--so that we see the private sector, the marketplace, playing a role, and we see increased home ownership.

The examples are perhaps not a great many, but there are first nations where this has taken hold. There is some remarkable success. It's encouraging, and it's obvious that the success--

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

They aren't the ones with the mould problems, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Monsieur Nadeau, cinq minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Fraser and the various officials of the departments and of the Office of the Auditor General.

Mr. LeBlanc, what is the life expectancy of the members of First Nations compared to other Canadians?

[Paul LeBlanc]

If you'll allow me, I will ask my colleagues from Health Canada to answer this question, Mr. Chairman.

[Ian Potter]

The life expectancy for a registered Indian is 68.9 years as compared with the life expectancy for other Canadians, so the gap is 7.4 years. The life expectancy for a female is 76.6 years, as opposed to 81.8 for the average Canadian. The gap there is 5.2 years.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

So, their situation is not very positive.

Let us come back to the report of the Auditor General. I question the seriousness of the Department of Indian affairs and Northern development. I know that there are many issues to take into consideration, from birth to death, with social factors, education, etc. It would seem that we're managing people's lives in those fields.

Is staff turnover higher at Indian Affairs than in other departments? Would that make the follow-up more difficult? I know that other departments do not deal with matters affecting Indians but would initiatives implemented by Indian Affairs cost more than those of other departments? Does staff turnover have an effect on the way Indian Affairs executes its mandate?

[Sheila Fraser]

We have not looked at staff turnover in the whole of the department. All I can say is that one of the key factors of success is continued attention by management. As noted by the Chair, there have been several deputy-ministers in this department over the past five or six years.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You're talking about management following up closely in the field, with First Nations, and not about the management of the whole department?

[Sheila Fraser]

We don't have any information about that.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

All right. Thank you.

You state at paragraph 5.59 that there is progress when there is cooperation and collaboration. However, there are still huge gaps between the efforts made by the Department and the expectations or the links established with the leaders of all the First Nations.

Let's consider for example the Indian Act of 1876, which some suggest should be reviewed and which you mention at paragraph 5.58. This Act has been in existence for a very long time. Sometimes, cooperating on a case-by-case basis can produce results. In some cases, you can make changes but in others, despite all the goodwill of the First Nations, changes do not seem to happen. Why?

Perhaps Mr. LeBlanc could talk about the way one should work with First Nations.

[Paul LeBlanc]

The challenges are enormous and cover a whole range of activities. I will come back later to some examples of legislative initiatives relating to some very important aspects of modern life that had obviously not been the taken into account in the Act of 1876. I am thinking for example of property management, funding, security, the capacity to invest public funds, etc.

First Nations cannot regulate large companies operating on their reserves, contrary to the rest of society. If we want them to be involved in this type of activity, this gap has to be filled. This was done recently through legislation. It is just an example.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Are my five minutes already up, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You're out of time; you're beyond six now.

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Fraser. On page 149, in paragraph 5.11, near the bottom, it says, “While we are not the auditors of first nations, we did consult with a limited number of first nations representatives”.

It must be difficult to work under these circumstances. I wonder, is this appropriate or is it a problem that you're not able to look further into these issues?

[Sheila Fraser]

No, Mr. Chair, we are the external auditors of the federal government. When we have done our work on first nations programs, though, I would say we have had excellent cooperation and collaboration from first nations communities. Generally throughout all the audits we do, they collaborate with us. We also have the involvement of first nations leaders on a panel to help us determine strategic issues and areas we should be auditing. They have been very helpful to us.

What we have to recognize is that each first nation has an auditor who audits the financial statements of that first nation. These would be auditors from the private sector, and having them is a requirement from the various departments. So there are many audits, and the departments can conduct their own work as well.

We have taken the position, if I can even make a link to the proposed Bill C-2, that it really is up to the departments to ensure that programs are met and the moneys in the programs are going for the intended purposes, not to the external auditor. We are very comfortable with the arrangement we have.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

So you've had good cooperation, which is a good segue to my next question.

Paragraph 5.14 talks basically about the recommendations that “are more complex and often require federal organizations to work closely with First Nations to develop the means to implement them”. Those are the ones that have been less successful.

My question would be for Mr.LeBlanc. I'm wondering what the roadblock is. It seems there's a problem there in terms of cooperation and coordination. What are your thoughts on it?