Public Accounts Committee on June 1st, 2006

[Paul LeBlanc]

Thank you for the chance to clarify. The department did indeed exercise a measure of leadership in bringing its work with the other departments and its work with first nations. There's been greater coordination. I'd like to correct an impression that I left in an earlier response--and the Auditor General was correct in pointing it out. I was not referring, or did not intend to refer, to simply a greater concerted effort between the departments.

Our response to the Auditor General's recommendation is that we will indeed work together to create a consolidated strategy in regard to mould, one that further consolidates the resources of the departments and brings together in one plan an approach going forward to deal with the mould issue. That we do as departments wishing to work together and make the very most of our resources in relation to a significant and important problem, one that is very serious indeed.

The government may choose to designate one of the departments as a lead among the others.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm disappointed that we have to debate whether there's a problem or not. You're very defensive and I understand that, but it doesn't address the issue I'm raising. Let me quote from the report and then please respond:

However, none of these federal organizations had fully assessed the extent of mould contamination in houses on reserves and the full cost of remediation, or developed a comprehensive strategy or action plan to address the problem.

Then the Auditor General goes on in the next paragraph to say:

However, without management's sustained attention, facilitated by a strategy or action plan, the scale of the problem has not been identified, priorities for action have not been established, and no overall plan for co-ordinating federal organizations' efforts or monitoring overall progress has been developed. Without a strategy and action plan to address this problem, First Nations communities may continue to experience premature deterioration of their housing stock and negative health effects on their people.

Please, sir, I want to know, if nobody came out of those meetings taking responsibility to develop this overall strategy, why didn't your department?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That's the last question, Mr. LeBlanc.

[Paul LeBlanc]

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure members that the department is indeed seized with the importance of the issue and certainly recognizes the seriousness. Each of the departments has taken measures within the limits of their mandate. I want to emphasize that the very additional need that the Auditor General has recommended we accept and we are working presently on the development of a comprehensive, consolidated strategy that brings together better yet the collective efforts of the federal government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.

We're going to now move to Mr. Bains. Mr. Bains, eight minutes.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much.

My questions are going to revolve around the concluding remarks that were made on page 170, paragraph 5.62. You indicate the federal organizations have made unsatisfactory progress and you illustrated that in your opening remarks as well, Auditor General, and you indicated the areas of prescription drug, mould in houses on reserves, and third party manager policy.

Further to that, then, on page 171, there is the government's overall response that the government provides.

I just want clarification. Was that response provided by the current government or the previous government?

[Sheila Fraser]

That was provided by the deputy minister in about mid-February, so it was the response of the current government.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

In light of it being a response made by the current government, the first bullet indicates that the first ministers meeting of November 24 and 25, 2005, in Kelowna demonstrated a willingness to really address some of the issues of housing and health--the areas you've outlined in your report as areas in which we need to improve. It goes on to state that these are very important consultations with the first nations and other partners, including aboriginal partners.

In light of that and some of the recommendations that were not met, how do you think the Kelowna accord would impact your recommendations on a going-forward basis?

[Sheila Fraser]

We have not looked at the Kelowna agreement or any impact there would be. If there were to be any additional funds or programs put in place, we would audit the actual outcomes of them.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

So you haven't looked at the Kelowna accord and what's entailed in it. Was that even part of the audit on a going-forward basis?

[Sheila Fraser]

That was not part of this audit. We limit our work to auditing programs that are in place, not announcements of policy.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

That sounds fair.

I'd like to ask a question to the departments.

In light of the government's response to the discussions that took place on the Kelowna accord arrangement and the recommendations that were not fulfilled, how would that impact? How would the Kelowna accord impact improving the areas that need to be improved with respect to the shortcomings described by the Auditor General?

[Paul LeBlanc]

There are many main themes of the Kelowna event that are compatible with some of the observations or priority themes that the Auditor General raises today and in other recent reports. Education, housing, infrastructure, and water are the most obvious ones.

The Kelowna event outlines some broad objectives. The current government has confirmed agreement with those broad objectives and closing the gaps in question. The most recent budget has identified investment in housing off reserve, on reserve, and in Canada's north. It has also talked about investment in social and education areas. These initiatives are very compatible with the overarching themes of Kelowna and the government's statements about agreement with the broad objectives of Kelowna.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

So the government agrees with the broad objectives of the Kelowna accord, specifically with respect to housing and health. Have you started to work on any of those objectives?

[Paul LeBlanc]

Budget 2006 indicated some $600 million precisely for housing, with $300 million allocated for housing in the north--aboriginal people would certainly benefit from a considerable amount of that--and off-reserve housing in the south. It indicated a further $450 million over two years for a series of priorities, including housing and infrastructure objectives on reserve. These initiatives will indeed have an impact. The detailed plans for how they will be applied are not concluded.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

The question I have is on paragraph 5.63 in the concluding remarks. It says that in the majority of the improvements that have been made, the recommendations tend to be administrative in nature and have less impact on the lives of the first nations people.

On a going-forward basis, when these broader objectives are taken into account for the Kelowna accord and changes are brought forward--

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bains keeps referring to the Kelowna accord, but I do not believe there is such a thing as the Kelowna accord. Mr. LeBlanc is talking about the Kelowna event. There was no budgeted money. This was only an agreement in principle reached by the former government with the first nations. It wasn't signed, implemented, or budgeted for. As far as I'm aware, there is no Kelowna accord.

I think Mr. LeBlanc is correct when he talks about a Kelowna event, but Mr. Bains is wrong when he talks about a Kelowna accord.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Well, Mr. Williams, normally I would agree with you. We don't normally get into policy, and that was a policy initiative that perhaps is not going ahead.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I'm just being consistent with the response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

There should have been perhaps an addendum to the response, but the response from the government seems to suggest that a lot of the problems identified and discussed by the auditor will be addressed because of the Kelowna accord. They don't call it an accord, but they say the meetings, and that's where he's coming from. But there's no accord.

But again, Mr. Bains, we normally restrict our discussions to the Report of the Auditor General. She has indicated to you that she's not into the Kelowna agreement or accord, but I'll let you continue.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I appreciate that very much.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I have another point of order on that, as well. When I hear the word “accord”, I think of the Charlottetown accord, this big thick thing that had all these details about how we were going to something, an agreement. It's another way of calling it an agreement and so on.

If anybody's going to refer to some sort of accord here, I think it's only reasonable that they produce the alleged document so we can all read from it and know what we're talking about. I have not been able to ascertain or find this document called the Kelowna accord, the agreement that everybody was supposed to have signed up and agreed to. I have not been able to find it.

I therefore simply ask for the courtesy that if you're going to refer to something like that, you have the courtesy of providing all the members with a copy of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Bains, we've cancelled your time. I'm going to ask you to continue.

But Mr. Fitzpatrick, the response...and I'll read it:“The consensus-based decision making displayed at the Kelowna First Ministers Meeting by leaders of federal, provincial, and territorial governments and national Aboriginal organizations is a prime example....”

The consensus-based decision-making is a prime example. So something happened at Kelowna. If Mr. Bains wants to spend his last three minutes on that, I'll allow him, but again I caution him, because we normally deal with the specific--

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Absolutely. Thank you very much, Chair, and I appreciate the concern brought forth by the members opposite.

My intention is not to put words in people's mouths. I'm basically working on the response given by the current government, which was the first issue that I wanted to clarify in my opening remarks with respect to who's response was this. In light of the fact that this meeting took place on November 24 and 25 in Kelowna, we can't change history. We can play around with words, but the essence, and with respect to the comments specifically made by the government in its overall response, clearly indicates that there was consensus-based decision-making displayed at Kelowna. That's what I'm referring to, and those are the objectives I'm referring to.

On a going-forward basis, from the changes that the Auditor General has requested or with respect to the recommendations that have been fulfilled, I want to know how these broad-based decisions that were displayed at Kelowna would impact that department on a going-forward basis. That's where my line of questioning was coming from.

I'll continue along with that because I think it is relevant, going forward, with respect to changes that are recommended by the Auditor General. This Kelowna decision-making process that took place on November 24 and 25 is a very important step, I believe, in addressing some of the concerns I brought forth, and that was my understanding when I was asking Mr. LeBlanc.

So I want again to ask Mr. LeBlanc and the officials from the health department this. On a going-forward basis, the recommendations that have been brought forth by the Auditor General--how would the Kelowna first ministers meeting and the decisions that were made impact some of the recommendations?

[Paul LeBlanc]

As a specific example, the Kelowna meeting demonstrated a consensus, I would say, by all participants about the importance of certain areas, such as housing and on-reserve water quality. Water is an issue, infrastructure is an issue--a subject of previous audits, not a subject of discussion in the audit context today.

The national leader of the Assembly of First Nations and the current Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs have worked cooperatively in seeing a renewed water strategy for first nations come about. It was announced, I believe, in March 2006 by the national chief and the minister. There's a theme that is compatible with the list of priorities. It's compatible with the current government's priorities; it's among the objectives that were present at Kelowna and with which the government has indicated its concurrence. And it finds a place in the Auditor General's work over recent years. That cooperation will be very useful to advancing the work in that area.

The government announced yesterday that a blue ribbon panel of experts will travel the country and bring specific recommendations to the government for the development of a legislative framework to ensure certainty over the management of drinking water in first nations. We anticipate that work will draw heavily on provincially resident expertise because of where water is managed in the non-aboriginal world. We look forward to a high level of cooperation from the provinces and territories.