Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 6th, 2012

[Michael Wernick]

I can give you my understanding of it, and I certainly do stand to be corrected. The commission was set up as a separate federal department. It has its own vote structure and its own reporting to Parliament. It has an RPP. It has a performance report.

Some of you will remember that there was essentially almost a lost year because the first set of commissioners resigned; they had to be replaced by a second set of commissioners. This meant that the activity slipped by about three-quarters of a year or a year.

The commission's mandate is extremely detailed. It's set out in the Indian residential schools agreement—schedule N, I believe it is—exactly what they're supposed to do and when they are to be doing it. But they lost about three-quarters of a year. I think what that's caused is a sort of cascade of moving forward the original allocation that Parliament made to the commission, so money that wouldn't be spent this year will be spent next year. I think it's a typical re-profiling issue. The commission has its $60 million. I know the commissioner feels that he needs additional resources. It's not a question I can really answer as to why he thinks that. That's a different matter.

Our role with respect to the commission is really to make sure that we disclose the documents under the settlement agreement and do everything we can to make their work easier, and I can assure you that we do that. But in terms of the actual re-profiling, I think this is just another example of how the spending is going to slide across the fiscal year from this year to next year. What the commission has done with its $60 million is not a question I should be answering.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Wernick. That information is helpful for me with regard to the vote we'll have to consider. Hopefully that clarifies that we're talking about an addition of $11 million to the amount.

I do apologize for jumping in, but I read that and thought it might be helpful for all committee members.

I'll turn it over to you, Ms. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I think that, under highlights on page 196 of the main estimates, where it says that, is helpful clarification, but did I understand that the minister has agreed to come back at budget time? If we had Justice Sinclair at the same time or in a different hour—or we could have the minister, obviously, for two hours and Justice Sinclair on a different day—it would mean we could go into this in a little greater detail. But it would be very important that the committee hear from Justice Sinclair, seeing that he does have deputy head status and that his work is complementary to the work of Deputy Minister Wernick.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Obviously this is something for the committee to decide.

For practical reasons, if there are any other questions we should move forward on asking those.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Okay.

In answer to my colleague's question, you mentioned the first nations infrastructure fund, but it looks as though there's a reduction of $43 million in the estimates. Can you explain that?

[Michael Wernick]

We got extra funding as a result of the stimulus package, which drops out, but the program is still there.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Based on what Chief Louie said last week, that they had announced that you, Michael, had said the government was looking at adding 100 new first nations to the process with Minister Duncan's support, I was just wondering what new funding would be available, because there are the 18 new entrants that were announced in January, and then the 100 you mentioned in your comments last week.

[Michael Wernick]

The funding that was announced in last year's budget, the 2011 budget, was the funding that allowed the 18 first nations to come in. So that accounted for that.

If we have the happy problem of a lineup of 40 or 50 first nations that want to come in, we will have to do the math and find a source of funding for that. I don't have that set aside now. It's a problem I hope we will have later in the year.

It would be relatively easy to calculate, based on the formula and the size of the communities, but right now it's really in the hands of the communities to sort themselves out and decide if this is something they really want to pursue.

There are communities in which the chief and council wanted to go for FNMLA, but a ratification vote in the community failed. So it's a delicate subject in some communities, but I can certainly tell you, based on the feedback I get, there is a lot of interest.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Supplementary estimates (C) have $1.5 million for Nutrition North Canada community store assistance initiative. Can you tell me how that will be used? Actually, I guess the point now is how you are evaluating it. As you know, the northern legislators wrote to Minister Duncan expressing deep concerns that this wasn't a real subsidy and that the savings weren't being passed on to consumers. Where will this program go, and how will it better reflect the needs of northerners?

[Michael Wernick]

That refers to a very specific item. As you know, the shift from the old food mail to the new Nutrition North is a fairly big one. We're moving from subsidizing the transport to subsidizing the retailer. We knew there would be issues in some parts of the retail chain with making adjustments, so money was set aside to help people deal with storage facilities, freezers, and those sorts of things in order to cope with the kind of supply chain of commodities arriving in the communities.

We don't have the kinds of authorities to do those kinds of business development programs in the north, so what we did was basically—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

How do you evaluate whether or not the program is working?

[Michael Wernick]

I'll come to that in one second.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

People felt they hadn't been consulted in the design, and now they don't think they're getting any savings.

[Michael Wernick]

Well, let me finish on the stores initiative. We will do what we can to help people be ready for the kind of relationship with shippers and suppliers that they do.

The consultations that led up to the new program were about as exhaustive and extensive as any that have ever been had on any program in the Government of Canada. It took two and a half years. We were in every community. Every group was spoken to. There was a lot of evaluation and there were research studies. I'm quite sure that there was adequate and more than adequate consultation on the program design before we moved forward, and through the implementation period, which the government extended by six months, as you know, keeping some commodities on the eligibility list.

One of the nice features of the program is that because it's based on the retailer we actually get cash register data on what's moving, on what's being sold and what's being subsidized. We already are seeing—and we've shared that data with the advisory committee—that almost all of the traffic is now going to high-value and nutritious commodities: milk, dairy, meat, produce, and so on. We're actually seeing significant drops in the retail price of some of those commodities in many, many communities.

I think what you're hearing is not a reflection of the 100-and-some communities that are served by the program but of a few of the places where there are issues and people are able to get to the media and raise their attention. But overall, the program is taking the taxpayer subsidy here and focusing it much more on nutritious commodities. We are seeing some results on that. When we have more data, we'll be happy to come to the committee and talk about that, perhaps in the fall, and we'll be doing a full program evaluation in a couple of years. The program isn't even a year old yet, so it's a bit early to start talking about evaluation.

Just to make sure, we do have this advisory committee of people—

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

When you launch a program, don't you know how you're going to evaluate it?

[Michael Wernick]

You don't evaluate in the first year that a program is being implemented. You evaluate a couple of years after.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Then you don't know.

[Michael Wernick]

Yes, we do. We do have an evaluation—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We've now gone over by two minutes in addition to the five minutes. I apologize for interrupting. It's important that we get answers, but it wasn't intended so that we could continue a dialogue.

Mr. Rickford, for five minutes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Michael and Colleen, for coming here today.

I'm going to shift gears, from education to water. I want to talk a bit more about the legislation around water. However, I want to pre-empt it by doing two things: one, identifying somebody who had spent most of his adult professional life throughout the 1990s and early 2000 living in isolated, remote communities in northwestern Ontario and Manitoba. The minister mentioned Island Lake. I had an opportunity to spend considerable time in St. Theresa Point, and northern Saskatchewan, northern British Columbia, and the Arctic, working as a nurse. We saw the tremendous challenges, not only from a policy standpoint but also from what the land imposes—how some communities may have more than one or two different water systems working. Unfortunately, we saw from the national consultation we had done that under the whimsical and undisciplined spending of previous legislation, it was in fact a mess.

So the strategy then was to engage in a process with the Assembly of First Nations in a coast-to-coast consultation, which I understand included technical experts and first nations leadership. In my subsequent but then previous life to this political life, I was legal counsel for a number of first nations communities, grassroots folks who were affected by this. I worked with them to make presentations at that consultation.

That consultation drove a report that I assume you're well versed in. In my own analysis of it, I think we come to three essential components. First, we have the capacity issue—the reporting, monitoring, and maintenance pieces, if you will, Michael, under the umbrella of capacity. Then, we see the second component: the need for committing and continuing to commit to critical water infrastructure. Finally, we have this legislation.

My question will ultimately get to legislation, but I just want to go back to capacity. This was identified, as the minister said, as perhaps driving, I would suggest, 60% of the costs and the risk—notwithstanding the disparities or discrepancies between one jurisdiction and another, where one would be categorically high-risk and the other one wouldn't be.

If you come to the great Kenora riding—and I don't know if you've been there recently—our commitment is focused on training. That's why, in Red Lake, Kenora, and Dryden, either through Confederation College or Northern Waterworks, we are fully invested in trained operators for an emerging, fairly sophisticated technology coming to communities in the short term and moving forward.

Michael, what does the legislation do for the third and I would call the essential pillar in a comprehensive strategy that has been thoroughly consultative and dealt with the appropriate partners and stakeholders? What might we ultimately expect from this legislation, the role it will play in this policy platform?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You have one minute, if you can.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I knew I was going to ask a four-minute question. I'm passionate about the subject matter. I'm sure Michael can do it justice. Thank you.

[Michael Wernick]

Well, I think I'd better get on the record. I have been to the great Kenora riding.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

All right.

[Michael Wernick]

I think you've identified the triangle of how we would make progress. That is, first deal with the infrastructure, and second, make sure that there are operators who are trained to operate them well. This is a challenge in small municipalities in communities across the country. The third piece is enforceable standards, to just set out what you're aiming for. In a nutshell, you have to know what to train people towards and you have to tell the engineers what to build towards. We look for as much comparability with neighbouring communities and municipalities.

You will have lots of opportunities to see the bill when it comes from the other place, and we as a department will be happy to help you deal with that.

I would point out that the Auditor General's report from last year, the expert panel on safe drinking water that ran around the country a couple of years ago, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, and the Neegan Burnside assessment all said enforceable standards are the glue that will hold this all together.