Government Operations Committee on Nov. 29th, 2012

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Ron.

Linda Duncan, again.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

One of the concerns that has been expressed is about the announcement of the cuts to tribal councils and other organizations that support first nations and delivery of services. One of the big roles that the tribal councils have been providing, including some of the technical advisory groups under the tribal councils.... There's one in Alberta that has been doing terrific work on advising on resource developments and safe drinking water.

The 2009 audit by your department found that the first nation lands and resource boards and other first nation entities were strained and struggling under trying to respond to the plethora of resource and development projects. Of course, we have...what's the one along James Bay? There are all those mining proposals, and then in northern Alberta, of course, we have massive developments in oil and gas. In the Northwest Territories, it's diamond mining. In Nunavut, it's mining exploration.

I'm wondering if you could explain to us where in the supplementaries we might find those cuts to the support for those organizations, and how the department is rationalizing these cuts, given that the government has said—and to their credit—that they want to move towards and support first nations in self-governance. How do they rationalize the decision to take away the funds from the very entities that are supporting the first nations in self-governance, in trying to negotiate good benefit agreements with the resource sector, and in trying to deal with the massive environmental impact reviews and so forth?

[Michael Wernick]

I'll try to deal with those quickly, Mr. Chairman.

You won't find them in the supplementaries because these are reductions that only kick in next year and, for the most part, in 2014-15. They were announced with a fair bit of lead time for people to make adjustments—both the tribal councils and the representative organizations. They will show up in future estimates in terms of line items.

In some ways, I guess, you'd want to be asking the Minister of Finance about resource allocation, but I'll do my best. If you're given a target to find reduction scenarios of 5% and 10%, you identify particular areas. The minister, certainly with my full support, decided to protect various areas.

We didn't touch the residential schools agreement. We didn't touch education. We didn't touch water and waste water. We didn't touch northern programs and so on. As you start to pull back from the total spending, there are only so many areas you can go to. We took a 10% reduction on the operations of the department—480 positions—so we know very well that we had to set an example and try to take the hit first on our own operations and bureaucracy.

The second sort of concentric circle out there was reductions to the aboriginal representative organizations and tribal councils. We never expected them to be happy about that, but we're trying to create fairly clear structures in terms of separating the role of the advocacy political organizations, on the one hand, from the tribal councils, which will move more and move into service delivery in the future, and to create a tiering structure that actually incents them to merge and form larger entities over time. We're seeing some early evidence that people are starting to discuss that. We're still in the period where they're unhappy about the funding reductions. That's a resource allocation decision.

All in, I think the minister would want me to underline that with the 5% scenario and the 10% scenario, the reduction to the department was 2.7% all in, mostly on operations, and was more than offset by the additional investments in water and education.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a few seconds left.

Of course, you do double duty in your department, in that you also have northern development. I'm looking at your plans and priorities and at the supplementary (B)s and then looking back. On page 17 of your plans and priorities, you are forecasting, for northern land resources environmental management, moving from a commitment of $203.9 million this year down to, in 2014-15, $67 million.

Can you tell me whether, within the supplementary (B)s, some of those additional moneys are assigned right now in your department to dealing with federal obligations under the Mackenzie River Basin agreement? That has been a topic of great conversation around the potential impacts of the oil sands, particularly given the news that the impacts may be going as far afield as more than 100 kilometres.

[Michael Wernick]

I will have to get back to you on the details. I am almost certain that the answer for the reduction that you show in planned spending is that it is because of sunsetting programs. We will be back with decisions in future budgets which will replenish those numbers.

We did not take any reductions in the DRAP exercise on our northern activities. You'll know that we have a very busy legislative agenda on the northern regulatory system.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Wernick.

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

Kelly Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too want to welcome you and thank you for being here.

In your very brief opening remarks, you noted that you have a number of pieces of legislation working their way through either the Senate or the House of Commons. I was very pleased to see Bill C-27 pass in the House of Commons. It's now in the Senate.

I want to commend the department on the work it is doing, and I want to focus some of my questions around some of the transfers I see in the supplementary (B)s. My first question is around the grants to first nations “to settle specific claims negotiated by Canada”. This is on page 86 of the supplementary estimates document.

I'm wondering about the $17.421 million in funding for specific claim settlements. Can you tell us a little bit about how that money is being spent?

[Michael Wernick]

I'll make sure that I can identify the specific amount.

Specific claims, for members who aren't familiar with this, are allegations of violations of trust or sharp dealings, or a grievance of some sort. They're not the unresolved land claims. These are very specific issues, as the name implies. We had an out-of-court settlement model for them for many years, which people deemed was not very effective.

In 2007 or 2008, the government brought in legislation to create a binding tribunal to make final awards on these issues. The tribunal is a creature of legislation and is up and running now. The existence of the tribunal sets up a process of negotiating settlements. We're motivated to settle, and so are first nations, because of the existence of the tribunal.

We have invested significant resources in the last few years in clearing up the big backlog in the pipeline of getting legal assessments. Essentially, my negotiators can't offer a number until we've done a risk assessment of what we think the claim may be worth.

We have eliminated that backlog. We have made offers right across the country. We have actually, in some cases, also said no, that we don't think there's a basis for a settlement and that people are free to go to the tribunal if they think they have a good case.

In aggregate numbers, we are now at well above $1 billion in settlements. The list of communities showing where these are is on our website, and we have a progress report, and so on. Most of the claims are in British Columbia, but there are many across the west, as I'm sure you know. They can be as large as $200 million to $300 million, in the case of the Bigstone Cree in the northwest part of Alberta or the Coldwater claim in central Ontario. Or they can be very, very tiny: a railway or a road was being created, and reserve land was taken away, and now compensation has been paid. They can vary from a few thousand to several hundred millions of dollars.

We have essentially eliminated the backlog. We're well more than halfway done with what we inherited in 2007 and are on the path to resolving many of the others.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

For my next question, I'm very interested in hearing more about the Canadian Polar Commission. I'd like to know specifically what it is. I know that it's about the management of the northern science award. Could you tell us a little bit more about it?

[Michael Wernick]

I'll look for more details. It's actually a fairly arm's-length satellite of the department. I don't spend a lot of time with them, other than, as you described it, the fact that it's a body that was created basically to create a forum and a management vehicle for coordination of northern science issues.

The federal government has many departments involved in northern science. Many universities, think tanks, and other people also are involved in northern science. The commission plays a very important role in that. They had a big part to play in the International Polar Year activity of the last few years. As we move forward on the High Arctic research station, which will create a word-class facility in Canada's north, they undoubtedly are going to have a big in-basket of work on coordination of science activities.

Because they're such a tiny entity, occasionally we have to transfer the money to help them do various things. One of the things they're involved in is the recognition of good science and we simply provided them some money to do the awards.

I hope that gives you some picture of what they do.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Yes. Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's perfect timing, Kelly. Thank you very much.

Next, for the Liberals, we have John McCallum.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome.

I'd like to go back to the drinking water issue. I know you've said that you couldn't really anticipate future budgets, but given the estimate of a total cost of $1 billion, if you were to continue to spend in the future what you're currently spending, when—if ever—would this problem be resolved?

[Michael Wernick]

I think what the assessment tells you—and it's a very candid snapshot of the state of water and waste water facilities across the country—is what is the upper bound of what it could cost. It makes some assumptions about what kinds of solutions...they tend to be the high-end ones, the “we will extend piped water solutions”, in communities that are highly distributed. These are not compact subdivisions and are spread out.

The technology on water is evolving very, very rapidly, so that there are solutions now emerging in the marketplace whereby filtration and treatment can be delivered and installed basically under your kitchen sink in your own home. There are all kinds of different approaches being developed across the world. What we're trying to do, which is not easy, because we don't actually do the contracting and the building—the first nations do—is speed up the process of the adaptation of those new technologies.

I think the stats are always a little hard to read, because you may have a community in which almost everybody is hooked up, but there may be a back part of the reserve that is not hooked up. I'm not always sure whether they're counted properly. The other thing is that communities can vary from 10,000 people to 100, and so if you count by communities, you may not be getting the picture of population.

We've made a lot of progress on the percentage of population that is now served by low-risk facilities. The low-and-medium category is well over 75%. It is going to be hard to get that last piece, and we're hoping that some of the innovation and technology will help with this.

I would like to get on the record that boil-water advisories are not a good indicator, because they can be a very temporary phenomenon; sometimes one happens because of a break in the pipe or because of lake runoff in the spring. The City of Vancouver had a boil-water advisory. That doesn't mean that people in Vancouver don't have safe drinking water. We do feel that the risk assessment methodology that's in that statement is a better measure.

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

Well, you didn't really answer the question. Maybe it's unanswerable.

[Michael Wernick]

I don't know the arithmetic of future budgets, and I don't know how fast some of these new technologies will be deployed.

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

Given that your budget stays the same, what's your best estimate of the timing?

[Michael Wernick]

I'd have to do the math on that. We are building as many systems as we can. Sometimes the system is an extension; what's starting to happen more and more is a sharing of facilities between reserves and neighbouring communities. Because this is a challenge for small municipalities right across the country. Ten years ago, you never would have had a community share a facility with an Indian reserve. That's happening more and more.

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

Moving to a different subject, you're requesting $45 million in the supplementary estimates “for the development of systems and supports to ensure readiness for First Nations education legislation” as well as “to support the construction and/or renovation of schools on reserves”.

Can you tell us which specific first nations your department or your minister has asked for input on the development of these systems and supports?

[Michael Wernick]

What happened in the budget, as I'm sure you remember, is that the government declared its intention to have legislation in place by the end of this Parliament. There is a process under way with the Assembly of First Nations and other regional groups. We had a national panel on K-to-12 education, which went around the country and reported. You can find that report on our website, as well as the Auditor General's report, which gives advice, as well as the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples report, which gave advice.

There has been a lot of first nations input into this. I'm sure people will say that there wasn't enough, but we can document who participated in all of these things. And there will undoubtedly be further consultation before the bill is tabled next year.

The money for programming is.... While we expect a fairly noisy debate about the legislation, to get on with the school success programs and the partnerships on the ground, which are making a difference in outcomes, there was a significant investment in those in 2008 and there was another investment. If I remember the math, the Minister of Finance put in $275 million: $175 million went for schools and $100 million for programming, or the other way round. The idea is that we're not going to wait for the legislation to make progress on the ground with communities.

You're seeing partnerships. On the same theme, local school boards 10 years ago didn't want to talk to the Indian reserves in their community. There are all kinds of partnerships now on curriculum development, teacher training, and so on. Those are really starting to make a difference, and we're hoping the legislation will provide that structure of accountability that will accelerate progress.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Wernick.

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

Next for the Conservatives, we have Costas Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today.

It is abundantly clear that our government is focusing on our first nations communities. I would venture to say that the number of pieces of legislation we have seen and the ones that are before us today is perhaps unprecedented in our Parliament.

I can see from even the additional ask, the additional request in the supplementary estimates, that roughly $471 million represents about 6% of the overall budget of the department, so clearly there's a focus on the first nations communities. I believe it's the right way to go if we indeed are serious—which we are—about long-term, sustained progress in first nations communities.

With respect to the supplementary estimates, I want to expand a little on the question of the development of systems and supports and the construction and renovation of schools on reserve. Can you elaborate a little on the school portion of it? I'm particularly interested in youth programming and youth education. Of course, that is a priority for every community in our country, and especially for our first nations communities.

[Michael Wernick]

I do have some of the details of what the specific injection this year is going to. It hasn't been fully allocated, as I'll come to in a second.

The minister made an announcement earlier in the summer. In particular, we're focusing on some of the big, expensive projects in remote communities that were always difficult to find resources for. Two big ones are Fort Severn and Pikangikum in northwestern Ontario. There's a school replacement in Kwakiutl in British Columbia and also another in—I'm not going to say that name right, but perhaps you can help me, Ms. Duncan—Tl'etinqox-t'in, British Columbia. There's a full school replacement in Lax Kw'alaams, a major renovation and an addition in the Peter Ballantyne community in Saskatchewan, and a new K-to-12 school in Shamattawa, which is a very troubled community in Manitoba. There's a $25-million expansion in St. Mary's.

Sometimes the renovations are very effective. In some provinces, to graduate from high school, you must have a credit in physical education, or you don't get your diploma. And we have schools where there's no gym, so simply adding the gym is going to help with graduation rates and so on. It isn't always a new build that will make a difference in the community.

We have held back some money in Manitoba. The chair will know these communities very well. We think we're going to have a bundled arrangement for two, three, or four communities where we would build all of the schools in one go, which obviously has some efficiencies.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I note that some $11.9 million in the supplementary estimates (B) has been allocated for funding of the family violence prevention program. Can you share with us some of the details of that program and, more specifically, how these funds will be used?

[Michael Wernick]

That is another example, I must say, of a sunsetting program. The authorities simply ran out and the decision in the budget was to extend them for one more year. We're in the same loop. They will run out next March 31, and we hope that the next federal budget will extend the program further.

There are basically two components of the program. One part is funding for a network of women's shelters. There are about 41 shelters across the country. The other part is in prevention and public education programs and in trying to deal with the issue of family violence by getting into communities, as more of a prevention-based model.