Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

No, I appreciate that. But in Nunavut in particular, there is a public government that perhaps is best able to administer this.

Generally, to respond to your question, if you look at the record, and let's talk specifically about Inuit people, this government has made significant progress in a very short period of time. Premier Okalik and others are on the record as saying that this Conservative government has done more, more quickly, for Inuit people than any previous government they've worked with.

I point out the $200 million that was immediately injected into Nunavut for northern housing. The Makivik agreement is the last Inuit land claim. I am the person who resolved that and signed off on the agreement, which was voted on last week by the community. There will be a celebration of the Makivik settlement on December 1. That brings an end to the Inuit land claims.

We've put $500 million forward that benefits the Inuit people in Iqaluit relative to the Mackenzie Valley project, which Nellie Cournoyer and others have been pushing forward on.

On all these files, there has been immense progress working together with the Inuit people. To be fair on this, I think if you examine the public statements that have been made by Premier Okalik, by people in Makivik, by Nellie Cournoyer and others, they have been extremely positive about how much this government has delivered in only seven or eight months.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I know you have to run, and I really do appreciate your taking the extra two questions.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you. I was pleased to do so.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'm the only one who hasn't asked a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Well, you can ask a question of the department. We have another 25 minutes.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

No, my question was for the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Storseth didn't have a question either.

We're going to continue now. I'm going to turn it over to the government, because I allowed the Liberals to have that extra question. I would ask if there is anybody from the government side who would like to ask a question.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm sure Ms. Karetak-Lindell appreciates your decision to allow for them to ask an additional question.

Now that we have the department officials to also answer some questions since the minister has had to run off to ops committee, which I'm sure he's a little late for, I'd like to go back to a subject that's been brought up a few times by a few different individuals around this table. And that is in relation to post-secondary education, which of course is the subject of the study that we're currently working on.

When we had some of the department officials come before the committee previously, they allowed us to delve a little into the method by which funding goes from the department through to the communities in relation to post-secondary education. Of the $1.4 billion that, for the most part, goes to primary and secondary education on reserve, there remains about $304-odd million that has been earmarked for post-secondary. After a number of questions in relation to that, through the department's current system for accounting for that, it was indicated that this $300 million was broken up almost on a per capita basis as per each community, regardless of need. Perhaps one community, say, in the south or the west or the north might have a large number of students who are in need of post-secondary funding but only get a specific envelope, and an adjacent community perhaps might have no students who need it. That community, in turn, would be able to have their post-secondary allotment become a part of their global budget for them to spend on perhaps infrastructure or other needs that of course the community has.

My point on that would be, in light of the fact that we do have this $300 million allotment, perhaps there does need to be further thinking on means to drive those funds to individuals on almost a need basis. I was wondering if perhaps the deputy might be able to give some further thought as to future plans or at least an analysis above and beyond my rookie perspective.

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

Sure, Mr. Bruinooge, I know the committee has been looking at this issue intensely, and if I understand it, you intend to put together some advice for the government in the form of a report. Not to lob it back to you, but one of the first things we like to do is get the committee's input and suggestions on how to move forward.

I've been joined at the table by Christine Cram, who is the associate ADM in the area and who has been following the work of the committee very closely. I know you had some specific follow-up questions that we owe you a response to, and they'll be coming.

I would just say--not to contradict the minister, of course--we are very much focused on K to 12 education and how to move that forward, but that's no suggestion that we're complacent about PSE and that there aren't things to be done. If the committee has some advice on how to move forward, we'll try very hard to implement it and get it through decision-making processes and so on.

You have touched on the most interesting issue, which is the delivery mechanism. How should the assistance that taxpayers are providing get to the students who are academically qualified to attend? It currently flows in a certain way. You can imagine other delivery models such as direct provision of the money to the students. They could apply directly to some entity. It's not easy. There is a pattern entrenched in the way we've been doing it. There would be views from first nations leaders and organizations on how that should be done, on how you could ensure that there would be strong first nations and aboriginal involvement in how such an entity was run. Should it be more regionalized; should it be national? There is a possibility of pooling the resources and flowing them more directly to students in a way that would be more effective and ensure that if a community has to wrestle with very tough financial issues about where to put their resources in a given year, and many communities have to make those difficult choices, the students shouldn't be caught in the middle of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We're on the third round now. The Liberals did have a turn last time, so I'll move to the Bloc.

Mr. Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some very pointed questions for you, just as you like them.

Surely you have a copy of the estimates and of the handout we received this morning, namely the Government Expense Plan, Main Estimates. I'm looking under the heading “Transfer Payments”. My question is very general. I tend to agree somewhat with the minister's claim that perhaps only 4% of the budget goes to cover administration costs. That may well be true, but I didn't check in the estimates. I noted that the figure listed was $609 million. However, that's not what interests me.

How do you plan to control the $5,252,780,900 in spending listed under “DIAND Grants listed in the Estimates and Contributions”? Apparently, 85% of the $6 billion budget represents transfer payments for education, health care, schools, roads and so forth. I don't think I need to draw a picture for you.

How can you be certain the funding awarded to a community isn't used to pay for consultants at a cost of $125,000 per year, to purchase three Cherokee jeeps or three Dodge Ram trucks for the chief or grand chief? What steps do you take to ensure that the monies go directly to those who need it the most, that is to the people? Has a plan been drawn up and what control mechanisms have you put in place?

[Michael Wernick]

That's a very good question. In fact, it's a fundamental question in terms of departmental administration. Two principles must be reconciled. The first is the principle of accountability to Canadian taxpayers. The department must ensure that the money allocated is well spent and that results are achieved. The second principle is that First Nations are autonomous and capable of making their own decisions and of identifying their own priorities and of assuming responsibility for their decisions and for governing their people. Reconciling these two principles is by no means an easy feat.

Thirty years ago, programs were delivered directly by the department through federal public servants. Today, most services are delivered by the First Nations. By First Nations, I also mean the Inuit and others. For the purposes of our discussion, I will use the designation “First Nations”.

The 1970s and 1980s were a time when governments offloaded many responsibilities to First Nations. The latter are now responsible for schools, water and sewer systems and social assistance programs, often working in partnership with other levels of government such as provincial governments in some cases. This form of government autonomy is funded in large part by the Canadian taxpayers through a range of transfer payments.

To simply state what the department does, it operates through the Indian Act, an outdated piece of legislation that, as I recall, was last revised in 1951 and through a host of contribution agreements pursuant to which a community receives a certain amount of money to deliver certain results. The accountability mechanism that you want to put in place can be found in large part in these contribution agreements. For example, a First Nation receives x number of dollars for an education program. The system now in place runs very smoothly. Steps are taken to ensure that planned expenditures are eligible and that the expected results are achieved. The First Nations government is obligated to submit reports and financial statements to us.

As the minister was saying, this is really the only tool available to us. There are no more sophisticated mechanisms like we see in agriculture or in other sectors. The over 2,000 contribution agreements account, like the Auditor General said, for a web of reporting. Obviously, when we resort to contribution agreements, which are like contracts, and when we ask for reports, there will be a web of reporting.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I see. Listen carefully now. I'm trying to understand something.

Can I have five more minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

No, no. Instead of going back to the government--because Madam Neville hasn't had an opportunity to ask a question, and they did have just a short time--when Madam Karetak-Lindell has answered, I'm going to allow a questioner.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I have a host of questions to ask, some of which I would have preferred to ask the minister. If the minister were here, I would have asked him the question of consultation with first nations communities and Métis and Inuit in terms of his decision-making processes, because while he identified a number of initiatives, he did not speak to the processes, and as we all know, the strength of Kelowna was the relationships developed there.

I'm going to put a few questions out. We heard a little bit about a new initiative on accountability and capacity building. I'd like to hear a little bit more about that.

I'd like to know from you what process you use to assess the potential liabilities when you make a policy decision as it relates to water, to education, or to any area. One of the clear themes that seems to be coming out over and over again is the promotion of provincial standards, whether it's for water or for education. My concern is, do you see that the ministry has an obligation to ensure there are adequate funds to meet provincial standards, whatever the issue is?

I'll stop with that.

[Michael Wernick]

Well, you managed to sneak three very fundamental public policy questions into two minutes. I'll try to do justice to them, and we could talk about them at great length, so I'll just have to try to be concise.

On consultation, engagement, accommodation, and so on, there's a spectrum of issues in there, some of which are very clearly legal tests set by the Supreme Court in various decisions about the obligation of the government to consult, engage, and to try to accommodate treaty and aboriginal rights if it is contemplating decisions, actions, regulatory decisions, and so on, that could impact those. And that's a process that we and the Department of Justice are trying to drive through the federal system, through its various boards and agencies, so that they understand that the National Energy Board or the Transport Commission, or whatever...and that we work with other departments on that.

There's a fairly narrow version of that. There's also a broader sense of the need to consult and engage, which is just common sense and 30 years of history, and it would be foolish--and would undoubtedly generate very bad policy and law--to think that the department or any group of officials or consultants in Ottawa is going to come up with the solutions that'll work in first nations or Inuit communities without the full input and engagement of the people who are affected by those decisions, who are going to live in those communities and so on. So there's a common sense version of consultation.

In the department we have long-standing relationships with national and regional aboriginal organizations; we've worked with them through leadership changes of ministers and leadership changes in those political organizations. Currently we have a very constructive relationship with all five organizations that were in the Kelowna process. I've met with most of the leaders and I'm going to meet with the rest over the next week or two.

The Assembly of First Nations in particular have been a very valuable partner. As you know, they are playing a full role in the matrimonial property process, driving part of the consultations, being part of the development of legislation that this committee will be looking at next year. They're very heavily involved in water. They're very heavily involved in housing. We have tables going on in economic development.

So it may be a little quieter and less multilateral than the process that led to Kelowna, with 17, 18, or 19 parties around the table, but much of that investment in relationships and goodwill and analysis is carrying forward and is being used as a basis to give advice and recommendations to the government. That's on the consultation.

We could go on about any specific issue as to how we're going about it, and we're probably not doing as much as we should, but the reflexive and standard operating principle is that we have an obligation to come up with advice and analysis for our minister and to work for the people of Canada. We also have an obligation to work very closely with aboriginal and northern Canadians on the issues that affect them.

On accountability and capacity building, I can't really do justice to it other than to say that one thing we learned from the hard lessons of Kashechewan and other communities is that capacity matters enormously. You can put money into capital facilities, and we certainly need more investments in capital in first nations communities, but there are connected issues of training, oversight, and inspection and of things being properly installed in the first place and being maintained. There are issues around the capacity of communities, which are relatively small in many cases, to manage budgets.

So everything we can do to strengthen governance in first nations communities, in terms of financial managers, community planners, audits and accountants, and all the kinds of things that governments need, is all to the good. It makes our job so much easier and improves the results in the communities; there's just more bang for the buck and more results. So we have a myriad of initiatives to strengthen—not to do it for anybody, but to provide funding and space for people to grow and train in these kinds of skills. Essentially what's happening out there is the construction of an aboriginal public service, which now has 20,000 to 25,000 people working in it for various governments and institutions.

Some of the most exciting things were launched a year or two ago around land management, the resource centre, the statistical institute, and so on.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Michael Wernick]

They are in the process of being set up. There are appointments, and it's always slower than it should be, and there's a consultation obligation to make sure we are putting people in those institutions that first nations people, in particular, will have confidence in.

On the third point, on liability, that's the last thing you have to worry about. We have so many lawyers giving us legal advice on potential breaches of obligations and treaties that, if anything, I would say we're too cautious and too risk averse.

One of the reasons we have so many of those claims is that not all of the claims in that inventory have to do with land issues; many of them do, but often they're breaches, administrative issues of bad practice by all of my predecessors, going back to Confederation, where transactions went awry or funds were not properly managed and our obligations, our fiduciary obligations in particular, were breached. So that's part of the claims inventory.

One of the things we learned slowly and painfully is not to do it again. Every time we set up a program or initiative or regulation, we try to make sure we're doing it in a way that minimizes the legal risk of creating more things. We don't really want to spend the kind of time and resources on litigation that we do, but people have a right to pursue legal remedies. So we try to make sure those liabilities are minimized.

I could deal with provincial standards, if you like, because that's a huge philosophical question of whether it's federal rules through federal legislation, imposition of provincial standards by reference, or the exercise of the jurisdiction through first nation law-making. We're going to live that on matrimonial property, we're going to live that on water, and we're going to live that on education. I'm not sure there's a common answer. It may depend on the particular issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

For just some words of wisdom, I have a little sentence on my computer that says, “A leader must determine when talk stops and work begins.” I think it's important to have that dialogue, but I think it's also important to get on with the work.

Do we have a brief question? Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Maybe it's more of a comment and a very short question.

I think it's in the interest of all Canadians that we have an increase in capacity building and accountability, including the aboriginal people themselves. What kind of consultation and buy-in are we getting at the aboriginal leadership level, and then at the grassroots level, for these increased accountability measures?

It would seem to me it's beneficial to all of us, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, to have all of our resources used to their maximum potential. So I would ask you to address that.

Then quickly as well, how in the world are we going to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We don't have enough time for another question, but if you could answer that first question, that would be fine.

[Michael Wernick]

You cannot generalize about the diversity of aboriginal governance and leadership. There are nations that don't have treaties yet in British Columbia. There are nations that have worked in treaty frameworks for 60 or 70 years. There are people under the James Bay agreement. There are people on reserves such as Six Nations, which are very close, and others that are fly-in remote communities. That's my first point, not to generalize.

A lot of the most interesting and exciting ideas about capacity and governance have come from first nations leadership itself. It's people such as Harold Calla, Manny Jules, and others who have driven most of the reforms and continue to exercise that leadership. So I'm quite confident we'll make further progress.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I think that point needs to be made over and over, that it's these people who are looking for that kind of accountability and--

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We're out of time. Thank you, committee, for your patience.

The meeting is adjourned.