Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 14th, 2008

[Michael Wernick]

Thank you, Mr. Russell.

I was questioned about this at the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples and by the House Standing Committee on Public Accounts, so I can certainly provide full answers.

We are trying to be more diligent in tracking what the obligations are in the agreements and putting some traction under workplans for implementation. We're trying to clear up a backlog in reporting to Parliament. We'll be happy to update you on that, and specific issues pop up on each one. The centrepiece on implementation this year, which you would know, is the James Bay agreement, which is the first of the modern land claims agreements, the subject of a lot of dispute and litigation about its implementation. We've reached a settlement with the James Bay Cree, which we hope closes those issues and allows us to move forward with the Cree of Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin, you have five minutes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our government has been working aggressively across the country to resolve outstanding and ongoing concerns with regard to water quality within aboriginal communities, within first nations communities.

I'm wondering if you could give us some type of analysis of where we stand today. Obviously there were a lot of goals in terms of how many first nations we'd be dealing with, and I'm wondering if you could give us some idea as to whether we've seen a decline in the number of communities that are experiencing water quality issues.

[Michael Wernick]

One of the things we've done under the direction of the ministers is to prepare a report to Parliament and to Canada on implementation. They've been tabled in Parliament every few months. I think we'll be headed for another one fairly soon.

Perhaps I could ask Christine to give some of the highlights. It's about capital. It's about inspection. It's about training. It's a multi-faceted plan.

[Christine Cram]

Thank you very much. In March 2006 there were 193 high-risk drinking water systems, and this number has been reduced to 85 systems now. Also, there were 15 priority communities that have been removed from the list of 21. There were initially 21 priority communities that had both high-risk systems and drinking water advisories in place, and those have been reduced from 21 to 15, and work continues on the remaining six communities.

Also, we have implemented what's called a circuit rider training program to ensure that water operators are certified, to increase the number of water operators who are certified, and to provide support to those who don't have the necessary certification level. So the number of operators who have achieved the first level of certification or greater has increased from 418 out of 1,177. So that's a big increase.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Obviously water quality issues run the gamut...the reasons for water quality issues. I'm wondering if you can identify for us some of the problems that have been identified. Are there a number of things that you see on a regular basis within communities, or are the issues all very different from one to another? Obviously training of the personnel is one issue, and that could be a simpler issue to address than actually a huge infrastructure expenditure.

Could you give us some idea of the theme in terms of water quality issues and how we might be able to be assured, moving forward, that this list won't be increasing and that we won't be seeing fluctuating lists again? The training is one issue, but is there ongoing assessment of the infrastructure, ongoing assessment of the other contributing factors that lead to water quality issues?

[Christine Cram]

Thank you.

The best way to reduce risk is by having trained operators, because then you remove any operator errors. So we've found that investing in the circuit rider training program and things like that is the best way to reduce risk.

We are also initiating a complete engineering assessment of all the water and wastewater systems across the country. That will be commencing in a number of months. We've prepared the RFP and it will be contracted. It's a big job, so engineers will be going into each first nation community across the country and assessing the water systems. That then is going to give us a very good idea of what we need to do in terms of addressing the water issues.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'd like you to comment briefly on the issue of children in care, per capita, in aboriginal communities. Obviously they're funded on a percentage basis, and that percentage would differ, I'm imagining, from one community to another. Is the department looking at flexibility to be able to move resources from one area or one community or one province to another in the event that there's a higher number in one region compared to another? Or do you find there seems to be a consistent percentage of children out of family care?

[Michael Wernick]

As a general statement, Mr. Chairman, nobody is going to be left without care. Nobody will be stranded. Bills will be paid. Services will be provided, and if money has to be moved, we'll move it. Part of the issue that a community is always interested in is where does money move from one thing to another.

That's a general statement. The rates of kids in care vary enormously from province to province, community to community. We try to predict them, but it's a case management that is done by the agencies in terms of their practice and how closely they work with the provinces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin. Your time is up. You're over time already. You might get the next turn.

Monsieur Lemay, vous disposez de cinq minutes.

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

I need to understand something. Mr. Wernick—I am reading this and trying to understand it—my liberal colleagues capped spending increases for core programs at 2% in 1996. Is that right? There has been a regular outcry about this. Who has set that 2% cap? Was it Treasury Board or the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?

[Michael Wernick]

It was the Finance Department of the day.

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

Who manages this spending increase limit of 2% today, in 2008? Does Treasury Board impose the 2% cap?

[Michael Wernick]

The budget guidelines are set by the Finance Department and implemented by Treasury Board and our department.

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

It seems that only the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is affected by this. Am I wrong or are all departments affected?

[Michael Wernick]

My colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the cap also applies to Health Canada for its health care programs on reserves.

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

A lot of things are starting to make sense. So, Mr. Wernick and all of your team—I do not really want to blame you— have to work within limits. The larger the aboriginal population on reserves gets, the less it can get in the way of services, since spending increases are capped at 2%. That is what I understand. I must not be too far off the mark.

[Michael Wernick]

It is a spending increase cap for an envelope of services. They are basically the services that come under Ms. Cram: education, social assistance, child care services, housing, community infrastructure. It is like a box, and the volume of the box increases by 2% a year. Even in terms of the estimates, you can see that $91 million is equivalent to the 2% increase.

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

That is really the crux of the problem. You have explained everything—all the programs. If we want to make a recommendation, who do we need to have come before us to get an explanation? The Finance Department, Treasury Board? Who? We will have them come before the committee. I want a proper explanation of this.

[Michael Wernick]

You are putting me in a difficult position. This is a budget decision. We are talking about the government's fiscal framework, and that is decided by cabinet. It is a government decision, and it really is linked to the budget and the finance department.

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

And you get the money from Treasury Board.

[Michael Wernick]

Treasury Board plays a role in implementation and oversight, but the amounts under the framework are part of the government's fiscal plan.

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

So it is the finance department.

I have been here for four years, and I have watched the Aboriginal population grow by between 3.5% and 5% every year. The needs are growing by about 10% a year, but your budget is allowed to increase by only 2% a year. It is impossible to pull off miracles. You don't have to be a star-student to understand that.

The only thing we can do is to call on the finance department to remove the cap. It makes no sense because you will always be limited.

[Michael Wernick]

Just by way of information, my colleagues at the finance department have probably explained that this applies to the core funding and that in both past and recent budgets, there has been additional funding for housing and, in the latest 5-year plan, for safe-drinking water, etc. Those amounts can be calculated.

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

But it does not add up to 13%. The needs are increasing by 13%, according to what we were told by Grand Chief Phil Fontaine and the Quebec Assembly of First Nations. All of our witnesses told us that. It is around 13%. So there is a gap of 11% a year between 2% and 13%.