Government Operations Committee on Nov. 29th, 2012

[Michael Wernick]

—going into budget cycles trying to seek their renewal. There will be another batch this year, and another batch, and another batch, and until more of these programs are on a statutory and legislative basis, this is the cycle. This year is a fairly large year because there was a very big decision taken on residential schools, but you will see significant supplementaries every year.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

For you, from managing the process, I'm assuming that you would prefer that they were on more of a statutory, longer-term approach than this piece. Or does it give you, as management, an opportunity to look at what's working and what's not and, because they sunset, it gives you an opportunity to make change?

[Michael Wernick]

I think there are other tools—this is my personal view, having been a deputy for six years—and sunsetting isn't the best way to get people to look at programs, question their assumptions, and reconsider them.

We audit every single auditable unit in the department. We evaluate every single program in the department. You can go to our website and find 70 or 75 reports of audits and evaluations. We've gone through consultation exercises on everything from matrimonial property to water and whatnot.

These are issues that I discussed with the public accounts committee, Mr. Chair, you may remember.

I don't think that forcing the sunsetting of big, stable programs—like education and water—is the only way or even the best way to make sure that people question the assumptions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. I appreciate that.

I have two questions from the actual estimates, and really, again, just because I have no idea.

It's not a lot of money, but you have one line for funding “for diamond valuations and mining royalty assessment activities in the Northwest Territories...”. Why are we as taxpayers paying for those valuations? Why are the proponents of the diamond mines or whatever not paying for those assessments? If we are paying...I don't know what we're assessing.

[Michael Wernick]

It's a good question, but it's a bit of a policy question. The way it's set up now is that there are royalties that flow from the mining activity, some of which go to the territorial governments and some of which go to aboriginal governments. These are important revenue sources for those northern governments, and you need a reliable source of assessing the value of something in order to come up with a collection charge for it.

These are activities in having a reliable assessment source. The payback to the taxpayer is the royalties themselves—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So do we get paid back? Is there a revenue stream for us to be paid back for the service we're providing?

[Michael Wernick]

I'm not sure.... I think the issue of cost recovery from the mining companies is a policy issue that's under consideration and that keeps coming up. That's not the regime we're operating under right now, but.... The basic administration of the scheme is provided through these appropriations.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

My final question for you is this. We had Canadian Heritage in front of us in the hour before you, as you know, and they had transfers of moneys to your department. In your estimates, there's a transfer of moneys from your department to Canadian Heritage. Is this just because one department is taking the lead on the management of it and not the other? I don't understand why we have to keep transferring money back and forth to each other.

[Michael Wernick]

It's an excellent question. I've had it before.

We're organized in vertical accountabilities. The minister is answerable and I am answerable for the funds that Parliament flows through my department and my programs, as are my colleague Daniel and all of my other deputy minister colleagues.

For the most part, the funds will actually flow through the department and be reported from that department, but there are always things that come up where there aren't watertight compartments. One department has the lead, but other people are affected. The War of 1812 celebrations probably came up, and northern science has come up today. The only way we can really tell Parliament that you allocated money but that it was flowed through another department is precisely through this documentation.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those are my questions.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Then we will finish up with the NDP. Linda Duncan has another question.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

I want to thank you for your cooperation. I hope you don't feel that you're being grilled down here. I really appreciate your good answers. You have a massive department, which means we have a lot of questions. I wish we had more time with you.

I want to laud you for your plans and priorities report, which we finally got, because you have in there, on page 27, the whole description, supposedly, of delivering on the Prime Minister's undertaking on this new cooperative nation-to-nation relationship. It's described there.

I notice also that in the main estimates you actually come and say that, for the department, one of the efforts is to have first nations “participate more fully” in the political process. In the plans and priorities report, you allocate almost $800 million, going down to $360 million, to forge this new relationship. But what I find puzzling is where we find that in the main estimates or the supplementaries. I would have thought there would be an actual line now. Is it intended that this will happen sort of by the by, through everything else that is going on? I'm surprised that there's not a line in the estimates and the budget for this new process, which would have costs of its own.

[Michael Wernick]

I thank you for the question. If it's of interest, we can try to follow up on how the high-level architecture flows through.

A quick version is that those relationships flow through all kinds of arrangements. We're in a funding relationship for various purposes with I think 45 representative organizations. Five are national and four are regional. There are about 75 tribal councils and more than 600 band governments—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

To be cut...?

[Michael Wernick]

—and that's just first nations alone. We also have relationships with Métis and Inuit organizations.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Linda.

The NDP has allowed me a minute of their time to ask one more question.

I'm dying to ask some questions of you, Mr. Wernick, but I have one specific Manitoba-related question that falls into your estimates, I believe. The Treaty No. 1 first nations have had a long-standing TLE on the Kapyong Barracks, as you know, the abandoned military base.

I have two questions. One, when will the housing component of the Kapyong Barracks be made surplus and given to Canada Lands for disposition? Also, I understand that a settlement has been reached of 50% of the Kapyong Barracks. What is the dollar figure you will be supplying so they can purchase the 50% of the declared surplus barracks as they stand now?

[Michael Wernick]

You've caught me, Mr. Chair. You know more about this one than I do. I would be happy to provide a written response. We're working with National Defence, Canada Lands, and the treaty group to try to move this along. I don't have those details in front of me.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I believe that Chief Fontaine from Sagkeeng has announced that a settlement has been reached.

[Michael Wernick]

Okay. Well, I'm not familiar with that, but I do know we are trying very hard to move along the treaty land entitlements in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It is a tough process because we're talking about provincial crown lands, third party interests in the land, and a lot of lawyers working for every single party—no offence.

But we have accelerated the movement of land in Manitoba. There are dashboards on our website that show you how many acres and where. There is still work to be done.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Maybe, then, to the first part of that question, when will the housing portion be...?

[Michael Wernick]

I will get back to you on that as soon as humanly possible, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That would be great. Thank you very much.

We still have a minute left.

Denis Blanchette, you had a question you wanted to pose, did you not?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

No, it's fine.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We're okay?

I think that pretty well concludes our time. We want to thank you very, very much for taking the time to be here. We know how busy you are. I think you have about the toughest job in the entire civil service, frankly, Mr. Wernick. We do appreciate your taking the time to be with us today as we examine the supplementary estimates in more detail.

[Michael Wernick]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is the third parliamentary committee in five days, so....