Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 24th, 2011

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Along those same lines, I just want to mention that the Office of the Auditor General concluded that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was beginning to take into account the spirit and intent of land claim agreements, in part by developing guidance indicating a broader interpretation of the federal government's obligations.

What additional measures will AANDC need to take to achieve the spirit and intent of the land claim agreements?

[Michael Wernick]

If I understand the language, I think it means not being entirely literal about the text of the agreement and what the lawyers will tell you is the narrow obligation, but to look at what the aspirations were at the time the self-government agreement or treaty was reached. They're often about greater local decision-making. And they may be about greater economic development, more participation, resource development, and so on.

The main tool that gives me some confidence is that we have a clear set of guidelines for other federal departments, as well as our own officials, in terms of what the expectations are. We'll have a single-window database of what those obligations are. And we're doing a lot of training for federal officials who are involved in this. So I think the chances of things being dropped or forgotten in the rush of current work are much smaller than they used to be.

The spirit and intent was largely to develop their own governance capacity and to participate in the economic life of the country, and those are things that we should always keep in mind.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

The time has expired. Thank you.

We welcome Linda Duncan, who's joined our committee today. I've been advised that the NDP is offering up its question space to Madam Duncan.

So, Madame Duncan, you have the floor.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for welcoming me to your committee.

I'm actually only going to ask one question, and then I will disappear from the table. So thank you very much.

I'm sorry I missed the presentation earlier. It is a most important report. I previously thanked the Auditor General, and I'd like to thank him again for a fantastic report. It's very succinct and basically says what needs to happen, after too many delays.

My question is for Mr. Wernick, the deputy minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

I looked at Hansard for some of the replies that were made. I'm just looking for a little bit of clarity, and I'm trying to get at all of this in one question. I hope we can get you back to our committee on aboriginal affairs and that we can pursue this in greater detail there.

Of course, you're well aware of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on the duty to consult. To consider and accommodate means that, when there's any kind of a policy shift, it has to be founded on direct consultation with the potentially impacted first nations.

Here I noted the comments about the movement toward tripartite agreements. Some first nations are more interested in these; others don't like the thought of the provincial authorities being at the table.

My first of a two-part question is this. Have you been directly consulting with individual first nations, as opposed to the regional council or Assembly of First Nations, about how they feel about entering into tripartite agreements? And are these agreements considered to be some of the transfer of the responsibilities of the federal government to the provincial governments to deliver?

I am particularly interested in the aspect presented by the First Nations Land Management Act. As was pointed out very clearly last week by Aboriginal Affairs and the land management board, that act only applies to reserve lands; it doesn't apply to the traditional lands. In my jurisdiction, in Alberta, where most of the impact is occurring, the concerns are with the traditional lands. It's a huge gap, as there's no federal regulation of that area.

I'm sorry that this is a rather complicated question, but I am interested in this general direction, which suggests that the federal government is interested in moving to fee simple land. What are the implications of that for the duty to consult and consider, and the shift towards considering giving the provincial government some of the responsibility?

[Michael Wernick]

I appreciate the question.

I'd be happy to take this up with the other committee. There are about seven issues in there, at least. If you would bear with me, Mr. Chairman, I will try to pick it apart as best I can.

Government is not moving to fee simple land on reserve. That's not on the agenda. There is an initiative coming out of first nations country, lead by Manny Jules and the First Nations Tax Commission, looking at a form of property ownership and property tenure that would not be fee simple. The government is not going to pursue that unless there is some evidence of some first nations support in that area. It's an intriguing area that's being driven from first nations country. I certainly commend it to parliamentarians, that they inform themselves on it. We're certainly not trying to dump responsibilities on the provinces.

I was going through the tripartite agreements last week. The intention is simply to bring to bear the expertise and the networks that are in provinces on issues like kindergarten to grade 12 education, child protection, municipal infrastructure, and so on, because the only people who really know about that are in the provincial governments—not in my department. In working with first nations governments and institutions, we of course we have a significant responsibility arising from our core responsibilities, including funding. Bringing those three ingredients together does seem to cause some momentum and progress in these areas.

These are things that first nations would freely enter into, and if they don't want to, they don't have to. Nobody would be coerced into a tripartite agreement, or into dealing with the provinces if they don't want to. We come across less and less resistance among first nations communities to at least having conversations with the people who work in provincial governments in these particular areas, such as education, child and family services, and those sorts of things. If they don't want to, they don't have to. But these conversations are sometimes taking place by themselves, whether we invite them or not.

On the duty to consult, I have to go on the record that the section 35 duty, in the view of the Government of Canada, is fairly narrow. It's when the crown is thinking of making a decision that would potentially impact on treaty and aboriginal rights. That would include a regulatory approval, a land disposal, and things that directly impact on definable section 35 rights of a definable community. There is a lot of jurisprudence on that. It doesn't extend to every piece of policy, programming, or administration the government takes on—at least, that is not our view. I know there are different views in some first nations circles. As a matter of practice, going back decades, governments consult with first nations people on changes that would potentially affect them. Sometimes you get support, and sometime you don't. That's the history of reform in this area. There isn't anything that would come before Parliament where there hasn't been extensive engagement with some constellation of first nations groups. The art in it is that between the national and regional groups and the specific communities, what combination would you deem to be enough consultation?

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Great, thank you. The time has expired.

We will go over to Mr. Kramp. You have the floor, sir.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

And, certainly, I thank Mr. Wernick

I offer you my sympathies. You must have what is literally the most challenging department in government. That stated, the dissatisfaction with the progress over the years certainly doesn't fall on a shoulder, but many, many shoulders. My concern is not what has taken place in the past, but where we are going in the future.

I have a question both to you and Mr. Wiersema. I expect there might be a difference of opinion on this. I'm not going to drill down in this point now, but I would just like to have it on the record so we can move forward.

In terms of the road map forward, should it be legislatively addressed or can it be done through initiatives from the department? Which way should it be done—either, or, or both?

[John Wiersema, Interim Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

I believe, Mr. Chairman, from the perspective of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, a legislative base for many of the programs Michael and his department, and other federal departments, deliver is part of the solution, as well as some information on the outcomes and service levels that Canada is attempting to achieve. I believe the legislative base is one part of a solution for moving forward here.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

What do you think, Mr. Wernick?

[Michael Wernick]

There is no disagreement. One of the really important parts of the Auditor General's report is that it shows there are four winning conditions or missing conditions. The combination of those is what's likely to result in enduring change. You could pick any one of them, such as legislation without funding, or funding without legislation, and so on. They would have some results, but they would probably be temporary, in our view. If you want enduring structural change, it's the combination of these tools.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Okay. I'm going to shift directions a little bit to education and young people's initiatives.

I have a particular post-secondary institution in my riding, the First Nations Technical Institute. It is always challenged for funding and, of course, it's a political football. The province administers education, but it doesn't want to control it and thinks it should be federally paid for. And federal officials say, “Yes, we have some obligations, but we don't administer education. We have never had a sense of direction that we are comfortable with on issues like this.”

Obviously, there are other post-secondary institutions facing similar circumstances. This particular institution has close to a 95% placement rate for its graduates. Yet, of course, its budget has been under pressure for years.

So I'm suggesting that we have some difficulties with in post-secondary education, as well as primary and secondary education. What are your thoughts on this, and do you see any potential solution to breaking this impasse between the federal and provincial levels?

[Michael Wernick]

Yes, and again it is about bringing people together around these kinds of three-cornered architectures with the province.

The institution you're discussing has a long history. I know you're probably more familiar with it than I am. It has been a bit of a pitfall. Normally the federal government is not directly involved in the operating costs of the post-secondary institutions; that's just generally not what we do. The federal government's involvement has been through research councils, research grants, and student assistance directly to students and their families to help them participate in post-secondary education—and occasionally infrastructure. There was a dollop of Canada's economic action plan that did go to universities and colleges, which helped them deal with some of their backlog.

First nations institutions sit there somewhere in the middle. Provinces used to say, if this has something to do with first nations, you should go to see the feds. Then we would say, you're a post-secondary institution, and....

We've been trying to draw a line, saying that you should get accredited as an institution with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada or get accredited with the Association of Colleges in Canada. We're not into funding private schools and religious schools and institutes. So they should meet the standards of accreditation, and we would then be in a better position to decide whether we should be getting involved with them or not.

It is my understanding—and you can correct me here—that this is where we were on FNTI and a couple of others. But our main tool is to actually help the students and their families.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

The population of aboriginal young people is growing dramatically. It's quite a demographic. On the one hand it's a time bomb, and on the other hand it's an opportunity. I'm wondering about the implications.

Could you extrapolate a little bit on them from your perspective and say where you see this going?

[Michael Wernick]

It's both. If anybody ever tells you that Canada is an aging society, you will say yes. But there's a large young aboriginal population within the country, especially in some parts of the country. The median age is 25, that is, half of them are under 25 years of age. We know they're there, because they are already on my registry, and they are either an enormous opportunity for the country for dealing with some of the demographic and labour shortage issues or they are going to be a time bomb for our cities and our social conditions. Whether we get them basic education and get them into the labour market and participating in the economy really is going to determine which it will be.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I'm sorry, but the time has well expired.

Monsieur Dubé, you have the floor.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are going to continue talking about education. This morning, I had the pleasure of meeting the representatives from the Canadian Federation of Students. We talked about some of the pressing issues around first nations. Among other things, we talked about the youngest segment of the population, which is quite vast. Among people between the ages 15 to 24, the unemployment rate is 41%, which I feel is simply unbelievable for a country like ours in 2011.

That said, we can also see what contribution those young people could make. For example, if they had better access to post-secondary education, aboriginals could make a contribution of up to $400 billion to Canada’s GDP. I think that would be very good for our economy.

We are talking about funding and you talked about standards in schools. I know there is legislation, but what are you doing to understand their standards and their needs rather than those we perhaps want to impose? What are you doing to bring them to the bargaining table in order to discuss their needs and address this awful problem?

[Michael Wernick]

Is the question about elementary and secondary education only or also about post-secondary education?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

It includes post-secondary education.

[Michael Wernick]

At the moment, elementary and secondary education are being discussed more. It is how tripartite tables are designed. We have direct discussions with a number of aboriginal groups, including the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. We try to develop mechanisms in order to establish standards. But aboriginal governments and institutions strongly believe that the standards they adopt should come from them. We hope the standards will be defined jointly with the provinces and that we will be able to establish some mobility in terms of diplomas. If someone gets a diploma from a school on a reserve in Quebec, we hope that the diploma will be recognized by a university, college or an employer in Quebec. So there are many avenues for consultation and development.

No consultation is underway at the moment on the post-secondary aspect, but it was quite a hot topic a few years back. Two aspects are controversial. One is funding and the other is the mechanism through which grants can be awarded to students. Aboriginal governments are currently responsible for that. The band council receives the money and decides who in the community will receive a grant. There are other potential mechanisms. We have actually put together five or six options. You can find them on our website. But it is a very controversial topic for aboriginal governments. They want to remain in charge of deciding which student will receive the grant.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Okay.

I had another question. It is on another topic, but it is still related to consultation and education.

This is for the people from the Office of the Auditor General. In terms of recommendations, do you basically try to consult with other countries that have significant aboriginal populations? Do you try to see how the relationship between audits and recommendations can lead to solutions that we could use in education, for example, or that would help us?

[John Wiersema]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada is quite active with the international legislative audit community and compares notes on common subjects that we are examining in our audits. In fact, Mr. Campbell quite recently attended a meeting with the Auditor General of Australia, where frankly they were looking to learn from our experiences here in Canada in auditing aboriginal issues.

Beyond the Australians, Mr. Campbell, perhaps you could speak more about the international collaboration we have done.

[Ronnie Campbell, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes, the Australian National Audit Office invited us and representatives from New Zealand to a symposium where we exchanged ideas. I think the three countries and their audit offices are quite different in many respects. I think it was very useful from our point of view, but I suspect that the Office of the Auditor General of Canada has done considerably more work in this area than those of our counterparts in other countries.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

Sorry, your time has expired.

We'll move along now to Mr. Shipley. You have the floor, sir.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Wernick, the other day you talked about a number of things, but one of them was the partnership approaches that are being used to address issues that came out of the OAG report. I think developing partnerships is always a strong, significant approach to be looking at, so I have a couple of questions that will revolve around that.

Are these alternative approaches being used to address, for example, housing issues?

[Michael Wernick]

I'll defer to my colleague from CMHC on that one, if it's all right.