Government Operations Committee on Nov. 29th, 2012

[Daniel Jean]

In our permanent base of employees, it's about 30%, and it's more than that if you include some of our.... It's over a five-year period, right?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

But how is it possible that your services to Canadians have not been hurt at all when you lose more than 30% of your employees who provide those services?

[Daniel Jean]

It's because we've prioritized our efficiencies and our changes in areas that do not serve our clients.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'm afraid that concludes your time, John.

I want to thank the representatives from the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Deputy Minister Jean and other panel members, thank you for your helpful information.

We're going to briefly suspend while we invite the next group to hear us.

Thank you very much for being with us.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting. We're running a little bit late.

Without any delay, we will welcome the representatives from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

We have Mr. Michael Wernick, the deputy minister.

Welcome, Mr. Wernick.

We have Susan MacGowan, the chief financial officer.

Welcome, Ms. MacGowan.

Perhaps we could have opening remarks for five or ten minutes, and then we'll open it up to questions.

[Michael Wernick, Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, members of the committee.

I have some talking points that walk people through the specific items in the supplementaries. If it's agreeable to you, Mr. Chairman, I'll just leave that with the clerk for reference.

I'd just note that we have a busy agenda at the department. There are currently five bills before Parliament being debated at various stages in both chambers. We're busy on implementation of the March budget. There are both positive investments and deficit reduction measures.

Of course, we do have the supplementary estimates here. These are, in a nutshell, largely measures that flow from the budget, so the decisions came after the main estimates were put to bed. This is often a pattern with our department. There are significant supplementary estimates every year.

If you add together the main estimates, the supplementary (A)s, and the supplementary (B)s, we will be spending about $8.5 billion this year.

I'd be happy to take questions on any of the supplementary estimates items, of course, and on any other matters of interest to the committee.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you very much for your brevity, Mr. Wernick. We will go right to questioning.

I believe we are beginning with our critic for the NDP, Linda Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for your brevity. We actually probably have a lot of questions for you, so I appreciate that. Thank you for the background material.

Going to your background materials, Mr. Wernick, I note that you emphasize that “an issue of great concern to the government” is safe drinking water. You also mention the safe drinking water bill, which of course is going through the House right now. It's finally in the House after being in the Senate for a while. You state that it “will enable the federal government to work with First Nations on a region by region basis, to create enforceable regulatory standards”.

Here is my first question for you, Mr. Wernick. Given the statement that safe drinking water for first nations is of great concern to the government, it's rather surprising that in the main estimates this year, there was a reduction of $159.2 million for water and waste water. The rationale given for that is that the waste water action plan ended in March of this year. Given the purported concern of the government for safe drinking water and for maintaining protection of the source water, I look forward to an explanation as to why they would not renew that for the long term so that there would be certainty of that funding.

My concern, and the concern of the first nations, goes hand in glove with the report from the national engineering assessment that more than a billion dollars is needed to bring all first nation water supplies up to the standards most Canadians benefit from. An estimated additional $80 million, according to the government-funded national engineering assessment, is needed for training, source water protection, and emergency response. Yet given the clear estimate by the independent engineering assessment that a billion dollars is needed, and when we have more than 100 first nation communities still on boil-water advisories, no new money is allocated in supplementary (A)s, as far as I can see. Then $136 million appears in supplementary (B)s over a two-year period.

Can you advise us as to whether the government is considering renewing its long-term commitment to safe drinking water and waste water for the first nations? And can you provide a rationalization, given the need, given the number of boil-water advisories, and given the number of first nation communities at risk? What is the timeline over which we can anticipate that each of those communities will come into the 21st century and have access to safe drinking water?

[Michael Wernick]

Thank you for the question.

I know from previous experience at the committee that this is a subject of great interest to you. I would not want to speculate on what decisions will be made in budgets that have yet to be tabled by the Minister of Finance of the day. We will find out. My job is to administer the funds as best we can.

I will try to answer as many of your questions as I can.

In terms of the sort of change in the numbers, it's actually the first example I can give you: the reason the number appears to drop in the main estimates is that it was a sunsetted decision. It simply ran out of time. The plan number would come down and it's added to the appropriations precisely today, through supplementary estimates (B). It didn't make it in time for the supplementary (A)s; it's in the supplementary (B)s, and it's $136 million per year for each of two years.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Oh, it's per year.

[Michael Wernick]

It is per year for each of two years. That's a two-year extension of the level of activity.

It will be a slight fall-off—I'm sure you've done the math—because there was a little extra injection of resources due to the stimulus package in Canada's economic action plan. If you follow the year-over-year numbers, the annual investments follow a pattern. If I start in 2008-09, it is $308 million. Then you get a peak, because of the stimulus package, of $380 million and $395 million. It drops down to $311 million and goes up to $330 million. I'll have to leave the numbers with you. That's the sort of zone of investment we're in.

The water strategy the government has been pursuing since 2007 has three parts to it, and I know that you're very familiar with this. This is for other members. One part clearly is investing in infrastructure. You need the plants for water and waste water. The second part is training of operators. We all know the stories of Walkerton and Prince Albert and so on. There are things that need to be done. The third pillar, in the government's view, is enforceable standards, and that's why Bill S-8 is before Parliament.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

Of course, we have this bill before the House right now, and essentially it's an empty bill, because the anticipation...the bill provides that all the details of standards and certification and so forth will be provided through regulations yet to be promulgated. I'm wondering if this $136 million per year is also supposed to cover the negotiation process and the hiring of all the necessary technical experts to develop this plethora of regulations.

[Michael Wernick]

The very short answer is that we will be providing funding for those processes of developing regulations.

The reason the bill is structured like that is that the decision was made that the regulations should as much as possible track the regulations in the province in which a community is surrounded. If you're in a Saskatchewan reserve, the regs should look very much like the Saskatchewan water regulations, which will facilitate common inspections, common infrastructure, and so on. There aren't a lot of reasons why, from a science point of view, the standards should be different on a reserve than they would be in a community five kilometres down the road.

Because the standards vary from province to province, we will probably end up with regs that more or less track provincial regulations as they're made, and of course they would be developed in a process with first nations, because they're going to end up owning and operating the facilities.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you very much.

For the Conservatives, Ron Cannan is next.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for sharing with us a little bit about Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as it's known in the supplementary (B)s.

I want to share with you the fact that I come from the Okanagan, from Kelowna—Lake Country, and am representing Westbank First Nation and the Okanagan Indian Band. UBC Okanagan recently renewed their agreement and framework for our aboriginal students in post-secondary. We all want clean drinking water on first nations, a good roof over their heads, and education.

As Ms. Duncan alluded to, there's somebody else with the surname of Duncan, our Minister Duncan, who has been working closely with our B.C. government in the First Nations Schools Association in reforming first nations education and, earlier this year, was able to sign an agreement. I notice that $45 million in supplementary estimates (B) has been allocated for the development of school systems “to ensure readiness” of first nations education. Could you please elaborate on how this money will be spent and where the schools will be constructed and renovated?

[Michael Wernick]

In terms of the list of specific schools, I'll turn to my colleague for that. There were three in northern Ontario already announced, and we have a bundle set aside for Manitoba schools, so I can provide you with the specific locations. There are many, many school projects under way right now across the country using our base funding, plus the additional investments that came with the budget.

On education, you do give me an opportunity to follow on Ms. Duncan's question, because the clear advice from the Auditor General in her May 2011 report is that one of the obstacles to long-term and sustained progress in these areas is the lack of clear legislative standards that define roles and responsibilities, the expectations, and the accountabilities. That's true of water standards, which were recommended by the Auditor General, and it's true of first nations education, which was recommended by the Auditor General, a Senate committee report, and a national panel.

We are assisting the minister in the process with the Assembly of First Nations. There will be further consultations with a view to having legislation before Parliament next year and operational by the September 2014 school year.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

That's excellent. We know that legislation won't be the panacea. We have to work with the first nations communities as well to implement that, so I'm glad to see that it's moving and making good progress.

Speaking of schools, a sad chapter is the residential schools program. I know that you have $125.6 million allocated in the supplementary (B)s for the continued implementation of the residential schools settlement agreement. Could you elaborate further on how those funds will be used, please?

[Michael Wernick]

Certainly. This is another one where it's not easy to get the context out of the parliamentary documents. This is essentially another installment of funding for the implementation of our obligations under the agreement.

The settlement agreement was reached in 2005-06, and implementation began in September 2007. We're now in the sixth year of implementation of the agreement. I expect we will be implementing the agreement well into 2015 or 2016 and perhaps even a little longer.

This is another decision that flowed from the budget. We needed the Minister of Finance to allocate funds to continue the implementation of our obligations. He did provide those for an additional four years, and you are seeing them briefed into the department through these supplementary estimates.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

So will we see further supplementary estimates on this?

[Michael Wernick]

We would expect—my colleague will correct me—that the main estimates next year would reflect the additional resources, and they should turn up in the main estimates for each of the next few years.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

In your main estimates, you've budgeted about $7.9 billion, and you're looking at approximately another $450 million, so it's $8.4 billion, I think, for your department. How much do we invest horizontally across all budgets for first nations communities across Canada?

[Michael Wernick]

More than 30 departments and agencies have some activity that touches on aboriginal communities. The second-largest share after us would be Health Canada and their non-insured health benefits and health services. There's a significant piece of housing delivered by CMHC, and there are significant investments by Human Resources because of the skills and training programs.

All in, I think I'll be more or less right if I say that it's between $11 billion and $12 billion a year across the federal government. I'd be happy to provide details, but that would be the ballpark.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Approximately how many people would be served by that $11 billion to $12 billion?

[Michael Wernick]

Most of the funds go to people who live on reserve, which is about half a million. There are some programs that reach off reserve, such as non-insured health benefits, for example, which you can carry around with you across the country. There are post-secondary education subsidies that you can carry around with you across the country. There are some urban programs.

It's overwhelmingly, though, for services to reserve communities and self-governing first nations, where we're kind of like a very strange province doing the things that other Canadians would get from provincial governments.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

It's a challenge. Keep up the good work.

Thank you very much.