Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 29th, 2006

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I can ask a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for coming before us today.

I've taken a great interest in many of the reports your office has brought out, and one of the things I continue to ask when I look at these is what, if any, progress is continuing to be made throughout your ongoing reports.

In reference to exhibit 5.1 of your report, particularly paragraph 6.94, I was wondering what progress has been made or not been made with the government over the last several years with this file.

[Sheila Fraser]

We indicate here our assessment of progress on the housing program. We said that the department has worked with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to identify how many housing units it plans to build, what has been built, and how much the program costs.

The question that remains, from our point of view, is that it hasn't identified how well the program is working to alleviate the very serious shortages. Perhaps the department would like to give more information on plans they have on this particular file.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Paul LeBlanc]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's true that there has been considerable cooperation between CMHC and INAC in terms of harmonizing programs, seeking complementarity wherever possible, and ensuring that together the programs can meet the broadest spectrum of needs. There have been improvements in measuring housing starts and incidence of reparation, etc. Those kinds of improvements, I believe, have been noted by the Auditor General on a few occasions.

We've agreed with that recommendation in terms of completing the qualitative value of information and reporting to Parliament with regard to the overall impact on the need for housing, the waiting list, etc., and we intend to work with CMHC to improve that aspect of the reporting. We hope to do so as early as late 2006.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

With regard to that aspect of the reporting, obviously you have found certain regions that are more critically in need of this than others. Could we have some enlightenment on that?

[Paul LeBlanc]

Greater housing needs, as opposed to greater need for this type of reporting?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Yes.

[Paul LeBlanc]

The housing needs vary considerably across the country. There's a significant amount of discretion at the level of the first nation about how limited housing resources are applied; for example, how much housing resource is applied to new builds and the kinds of new builds, how much money may be put into lot development versus actual housing development, how much a community will need to match federal funding to make housing dollars go further, and the extent to which they will use rental regimes or home ownership regimes and through these methods have private sector investment to the first nation. These vary considerably across the country.

The department applies its housing resources on an equitable basis, which is driven primarily by population from first nation to first nation. The bulk of the decisions about how to invest that money resides with the local leadership. There are examples of first nations that are phenomenally successful in terms of private sector leveraging and home ownership on reserve. They are not in a majority, but they are not insignificant. They are doing a great deal to help other first nations develop this kind of market investment in their housing needs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemay.

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

I have several questions, but I am going to save some for the next report. Be that as it may, let's start with this one.

As I was saying earlier, Ms. Fraser, I read and reread your report. In doing so, I wondered whether the government wasn't both judge and defendant in the context of treaty negotiations. We know that it will pay, decide at what time the negotiations will take place, what will be discussed and how long they will last. I don't want to talk about conflicts of interest, but I wonder wether that isn't one of the reasons why negotiations are so difficult.

I read, at the end of your report, the government's overall response. This is what it said:

[...] resolving Aboriginal issues remains an extremely difficult challenge, characterized by complex jurisdictional issues. Taking on major reforms is complex, requires staging over time, and is supported by the establishment of strong governance and accountability measures in First Nations communities.

You have read this paragraph, I expect. I would like to know how you interpret it. I must admit that I have reservations in this regard. It is on page 199 of the French version. I don't know if I am leading you into difficult territory.

[Sheila Fraser]

You may want to ask the government for explanations in that regard.

Be that as it may, we all recognize that these are complex issues that require time. Moreover, the government indicated that strong governance and accountability measures were required from introduced into aboriginal communities. Within the context of our audits, we noted that certain concrete measures could have been taken during the that has elapsed time, and we did not observe the progress that we would have liked to see. No department was clearly entrusted with developing a strategy for addressing the problem of mould. There are indications that treaty negotiations could take 29 years on the average. That seems too long to us.

In brief, these things will take time, but one has to wonder wether they won't take too much time.

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

Do you mean that treaty negotiations are lengthy, but that the applications of certain measures could at least cause things to move forward?

[Sheila Fraser]

The federal government has obligations, whether pursuant treaties, legislation or other matters. For our part, we ensure through our audits that the government is respecting its commitments under the policies it has put in place, and existing obligations.

Insofar as the treaties are concerned, I would suggest that we revisit this issue after the next report. There will be an audit which will focus specifically on the treaty process. I think that we will be in a position to discuss the issue more advisedly.

In any case, the government may want to provide further details on the matter.

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

Am I to understand that the next report will discuss the 748 files that are pending? If that were the case, I would really find you extraordinary!

[Sheila Fraser]

Unfortunately, we are not in a position to do all of that. We are studying the process applied in British Columbia.

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

Yes, that is what we were saying earlier.

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Paul LeBlanc]

A little earlier, we broached the issue of the department's dual role, that is to say the provision of services and its responsibility for the negotiations. I think that one of the members of the committee or the Auditor General mentioned that administrative measures could be taken to minimize the possibility of conflicts. Among others, these functions must be separated within the departments. Thus, the provision of services can be treated separately in a unit where the people responsible for those negotiations work, for instance.

Unfortunately, those people are not represented today at this committee. I would prefer that they be present so that we could discuss this issue with greater precision. We are talking here about treaties and land claims. We could surely raise these topics at a subsequent meeting.

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

Very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

We'll move on to the government side. Mr. Albrecht.

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

Mr. Chairman, Mr. LeBlanc mentioned earlier the success on various reserves of different ways of dealing with the housing issue and how these are helping other areas with their housing needs as well. I'm pleased to hear it.

In light of the report, I asked Ms. Fraser earlier, concerning the three priorities involving an unsatisfactory response, if she could identify three or four examples in which she has seen a very good response to previous reports as INAC has worked through them, and whether she could speculate as to why in those areas they were successful in addressing the issues and in others may not have been. Using a similar approach, if we could share the commonalities of procedures and philosophy that was used there, maybe they could be applied in an another area.

[Sheila Fraser]

We note in the report a number of recommendations where there has been satisfactory progress. I could just rapidly go through them. For example, in Health Canada in the first nations health we note here that the department realigned program structure. It does more monitoring and follow-up of activity reports. It requires community health plans. And they were being more vigilant, I think, about some of the requirements of the transfer agreements. So there was actually overall very good progress made on that particular chapter.

Another one, as was mentioned earlier by Mr. LeBlanc,was the cooperation between the Department of Indian Affairs and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There was much better cooperation, and that brought in a number of improvements to the way housing programs were being run, for example, on codes and standards.

I'm just going through some of this quickly here. Those are the two where we noted the most progress. I think those would be the two where the most progress was noted.

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

Would it be fair to say, then, that it's primarily an administrative change that has taken place, as opposed to action on the part of the committee or on part of the Ministry of Indian Affairs?

[Sheila Fraser]

That's why, in spite of the fact that there were so many recommendations where we did give them a satisfactory rating, overall we judge progress as unsatisfactory, because most of the ones where there was satisfactory progress tended to deal with the kind of internal government cooperation and collaboration, and for the programs that really affected people's health and well-being the most progress wasn't as satisfactory.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Blaney.