Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 14th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you all.

That completes the first round. Now we will begin the second round.

Ms. Keeper, you have five minutes.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much.

I only have five minutes, so I'm going to get right to my questions.

The Auditor General's report has indicated and does discuss the Alberta model. You, Mr. Minister, have been on the record as saying, and you said it again today, that more money is not the answer; it's about fixing the system and addressing the systemic issues.

However, at the same time, the Alberta model has a significant increase in funding, which will be 74% by 2010 in the new formula. There's a significant increase in the funding in that model, and I hope this is going to be across the board in terms of other communities.

In the report, the Children's Special Allowances Act had a directive from Treasury Board to the Department of Indian Affairs to cut the children's special allowance, which will have a significant impact on communities and first nations agencies, child welfare agencies that have a lot of children in care. I'm a little perplexed by all of these confusing messages and confusing strategies. I want to know about the children's special allowance.

The impact will be really significant, especially when children are being forced into care to access health care services. Many of them are going into child family service agencies. Could you speak to that directive and why first nations child welfare agencies haven't been formally informed about that cut?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

First I'll address the general issue, which is funding.

It may well be that it would be more expensive to fund a preventive model. That's why we've allocated more money going forward, specifically for tripartite agreements. In the short term, there may be more money required, and that's as it may be. But again, it's to change the system.

It started in 1996-97. It has more than doubled. It is two and a half times as much. We have way too many kids in care. So the model is not working.

In this case, the model is wrong, and the funding formula may also be wrong. But it can't be done by simply saying that we should keep doing what we've been doing and put more money into it, because it's not--

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Then how could cuts possibly help?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

There aren't cuts. We've added more money.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

No, that's just for Alberta. Right?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

No. We've added more money for moving forward. As I mentioned, we were hoping to add a couple of more provinces this year through negotiations, and we have more money to do that.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Could you tell me where that is in the estimates?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Yes, it's in the budget numbers. It won't show up until the supplementary estimates because--

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Will there be a directive, then? Is this special allowance cut going to take place? And will the increase make up for that shortfall? You're saying that the status quo doesn't work, so I don't understand how a cut could possibly be helpful. It's in the Auditor General's report under section 4.61.

In fact, it states that the money is used “to supplement INAC funding for its operating and administrative costs. When the special allowance is no longer available for that purpose, the resources for this agency’s operations will be reduced by approximately 30 percent”.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

INAC has not yet defined the reasonable comparability with provincial systems and so on. That is part of the negotiations that have to take place as we move to this preventive model.

The concern, as I understand it, is that as you move to a new model, the model will be done in a culturally sensitive way to replicate what the provinces are already doing. I think every province is basically on a prevention model.

As we move into those negotiations, whatever the numbers are, whatever those negotiations are and have to be, what you can't have is stacking of old programs on new ones. You can't say that you're going to have this program with this provision, which is based on an old model, and then move it over to the new model and cherry-pick parts from the old model to add to it.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

This is not about that new model, though. This is about the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I'm sorry, we are well over the five minutes.

We'll go to Mr. Clarke.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

It's section 4.58 and 4.61 in the Auditor General's report.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I don't have the Auditor General's report in front of me, so I'll have to get that answer for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thanks, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Clarke, you have five minutes.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Strahl, I have two small questions. This is based on past experience working on first nations reserves as an RCMP officer. While stationed on first nations reserves, and living there, I had numerous people come up to me and ask about the accountability of first nations. That's just basic to the audit system. A lot of first nations residents were wondering about the accountability of the first nations. That is one question I have.

Also, another interesting question, or my own personal.... Coming from the Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River riding, I'm wondering how much land entitlement my riding has received.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'm not sure. I'll have to look up the answer to the last one. In a general sense, of course, we've been busy on the treaty land entitlements on the prairies. We promised 150,000 acres a year in Manitoba. We met our numbers last year, and we're going to meet them this year. So we are on course to add 150,000 acres a year, as promised, but we'll have to get the actual numbers for your riding. We'll do that.

On the accountability of first nations, you're always trying to find the balance—this was raised by Ms. Crowder—between how many reports you fill out and whether they are actually doing any good, as the first thing, and then secondly, whether you can audit them, whether you can get to the bottom of them. It's one thing to say.... For example, someone says “There was $10,000 for painting a school, and I show an expense of $10,000”, but how do you know for sure whether somebody actually painted the school? There was an invoice in and out; an audit allows you to chase things to ground and say what was actually done. There might be paperwork, but when you audit it, of course, an auditor can express an opinion as to what actually went on.

I must say that in my own experience in my riding—I have 42 first nations in my riding—it's the same sort of thing. I've had people in my office from first nations communities saying, “I expect to see an audit, just as I do from the City of Chilliwack. I want to see an audited statement that I can go through line by line, and I expect to get it, as a member of the community.”

By extending the audit provision I mentioned earlier to transfer agreements with first nations, we're hoping for more transparency in the system, so that first nations members at large, or chiefs in council, as far as that goes, can say—I think it cuts both ways—“Here are the books; they're open; you can all have a look at them.” It cuts both ways then: the chief in council can say, “See, this is exactly what we did”, and members can say, “I want to know exactly what you did”, and they can back it up with the documents.

We all know that transparency protects all parties, because it allows people to say, “I was falsely accused of doing something with the money.” You see that. I'm sure you've seen cases as well where someone accuses a chief he didn't like of doing something nefarious, and the truth was that it was all good.

You have to get those numbers out in front of people. It's important for first nations leadership to be accountable to their own citizenry, and this will allow that to happen in a way that—we're not picking on anyone—is across the board.

We'll get those other numbers on your riding. You sprang that one on me. I'll get that, though, shortly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that it, Mr. Clarke?

Mr. Perron, you have five minutes.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for welcoming me to your committee as a new recruit.

Good afternoon, Minister.

On March 5^th last —I was not here, but I read the blues from the meeting—my colleague, Mr. Lemay, asked you whether there was a tripartite agreement with Quebec for child and family services. You gave some sort of bureaucratic answer that seems to me to add up to no.

I want to ask you the same question. What is the status of negotiations among the Québécois nation, the first nations and the Government of Canada? Do you believe that an agreement will be signed? How many moons will that take?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I'm not sure how long it will take. When there's a tripartite agreement it's not just up to me. It's not just me. The province has to be comfortable with it and first nations have to believe it's going to work for them too. When you're having tripartite agreements, it's up to three parties to come to a conclusion. But I think it's going well. There's a work plan to go through the issues that are at stake. Not just in Quebec, but in other provinces they're pursuing that. Admittedly, people are being careful, because it's a big issue. It's a big issue to provinces like Quebec that have control of child and family services, and they don't want the federal government interfering in that.

First nations understandably want a system that's sensitive to their concerns as well. Again, I can speak from experience in my own riding, where you're trying to provide child and family services through the province to first nations that, in my case back home, may not be comfortable with a child and family service arrangement that is not administered by their own band.

You can't have 600 separate child and family service agreements in the country. They have to be grouped with the province and grouped with significant numbers of first nations so that it's a system that will work. So these things are complex. I wish it were as simple as just a template that would work everywhere, but it's proven to be difficult.

I don't know if you have anything to add. It's difficult, because everyone is different, every province is different, and first nations within the provinces are also different.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I will let my colleague, Mr. Lemay, continue to put the heat on the minister.

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

Minister, I asked you a question earlier, which gave me 17 minutes to go over things. The community infrastructure budget is $230 million lower this year. I am choosing my words carefully.

You told me that funding for the whole water program, etc., had to be considered and that this was part of a special program. But I have a problem for you.

When I look at the Supplementary Estimates, on page 93, I see an amount of $137 million for the Fund to implement the Potable Water Management Plan. So that means $100 million less than what used to be provided for infrastructure. There was $100 million kept back this year.

I would like an explanation of that. I know that there is funding for water issues, which is fine, but there is a gap of $100 million and the communities have pressing needs.

Could you explain that to me?

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

I don't mean to disturb Mr. Lemay's round of questioning, but perhaps he could just slow it down a bit. The translator is having a hard time keeping up. It will just make it a little easier for us. I respect his passion.

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

Mr. Chairman, with respect, regarding Mr. Storseth's point of order, he has just experienced what happens so often to us francophones when our anglophone colleagues speak too quickly. Since I feel very strongly about this, if you give me 30 seconds...

Did you understand my question, Minister?